of doi 101071MU15118_AC BirdLife Australia 2016 Monochromatism c - PDF document

of doi: 10.1071/MU15118_AC © BirdLife Australia 2016 Monochromatism, cryptic sexual dimorphism and lack of assortative mating in the A,B,C Pedro H. L. Ribeiro Gianlucca S. Rechand Regina H. MacedoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade de Brasília, Laboratório de Comportamento Animal, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF 70910-900, Corresponding author. Email: pdadiniz@gmail.com of Table S1. Post-hoc contrasts between inter-sexual and intra-sexual chromatic distances of perceived plumage colour in Rufous Horneros r-sexual (IS) and intra-sexual (IM, males; IF, females) chromatic distances (log-transformed). We show the estimates of least-squares means -values in bold indicate non-significant results ( )y significant before controlling for false discovery rates (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). males and 30 females. U. coverts: undertail-coverts. Degrees of freedom: 1,655.26 (IS – IF), 1,639.68 (IS – IM), 1,826 (IF – IM) Violet-sensitive system (VS)Ultraviolet-sensitive system (UVS) Estimate ± s.e. Estimate ± s.e.IS – IF Back –0.08 ± 0.19 –0.40 0.69 –0.09 ± 0.18 –0.50 0.62 Breast –0.02 ± 0.17 –0.10 0.

92 0.001 ± 0.20 –0.003 1.00 Crown –0.50 ± 1.27 –0.40 0.69 –0.99 ± 2.57 –0.39 0.71 Rump 0.11 ± 0.23 0.46 0.65 0.04 ± 0.21 0.20 0.85 Throat –0.07 ± 0.11 –0.64 0.52 –0.05 ± 0.11–0.48U. coverts 0.36 ± 0.16 2.26 0.028 0.28 ± 0.17 1.68 0.097 IS – IM Back –0.03 ± 0.19 –0.17 0.87 –0.05 ± 0.18 –0.27 0.79 Breast –0.10 ± 0.17 –0.59 0.56 –0.12 ± 0.20 –0.63 0.53 Crown 0.28 ± 1.24 0.23 0.82 0.26 ± 2.47 0.10 0.92 Rump –0.12 ± 0.20 –0.61 0.54 –0.03 ± 0.19 –0.16 0.87 Throat –0.03 ± 0.11 –0.03 0.76 –0.04 ± 0.10 –0.40 0.69 U. coverts –0.13 ± 0.10 –1.26 0.21 –0.17 ± 0.12 –1.38 0.17 IF – IM Back 0.04 ± 0.27 0.16 0.87 0.04 ± 0.25 0.18 0.86 Breast –0.08 ± 0.24 –0.34 0.73 –0.12 ± 0.28 –0.44 0.66 Crown 0.78 ± 1.77 0.44 0.66 1.25 ± 3.54 0.35 0.72 Rump –0.23 ± 0.30 –0.76 0.45 –0.07 ± 0.28 –0.25 0.80 Throat 0.04 ± 0.15 0.25 0.80 0.01 ± 0.15 0.08 0.93 U. coverts –0.49 ± 0.19 –2.63 0.010 –0.45 ± 0.20–2.210.030 of Table S2. Sexual differences in plumage colour of adult Rufous Horneros We show the magnitude of mean differences and -test results. Sample sizes: 31 males and 30 females, except for paired = 23 breeding pairs, df =22

). U. coverts: undertail-coverts Mean (%) ± s.e. -test Paired -test Male Female Cohen’s Mean reflectance Back 4.94 ± 0.32 5.43 ± 0.29 –0.29 (–0.82, 0.23) –1.14 (58.61) 0.26 –0.34 0.74 Breast 11.82 ± 0.48 13.23 ± 0.36 –0.60 (–1.13, –0.06) –2.34 (55.25) 0.02 –1.90 0.07 Crown 4.67 ± 0.30 4.77 ± 0.34 –0.06 (–0.58, 0.46) –0.22 (57.66) 0.82 0.47 0.64 Rump 6.41 ± 0.27 6.94 ± 0.29 –0.34 (–0.87, 0.18) –1.34 (58.26) 0.19 –0.86 0.40 Throat 33.04 ± 1.94 32.25 ± 1.92 0.07 (–0.45, 0.60) 0.29 (59.00) 0.770.50 0.62 U. coverts 18.90 ± 0.85 19.34 ± 0.81 –0.10 (–0.62, 0.43) –0.38 (58.95) 0.71 –0.44 0.66 Contrast Back 14.59 ± 0.56 15.86 ± 0.67 –0.38 (–0.90, 0.15) –1.47 (56.83) 0.15 –0.60 0.55 Breast 32.00 ± 1.32 34.62 ± 1.27 –0.37 (–0.89, 0.16) –1.59 (58.63) 0.12 –0.99 0.33 Crown 12.15 ± 0.80 12.69 ± 0.90 –0.12 (–0.64, 0.41) –0.45 (58.03) 0.65 0.47 0.65 Rump 22.55 ± 0.65 22.81 ± 0.75 –0.07 (–0.60, 0.46) –0.27 (56.15) 0.79 –0.71 0.48 Throat 44.49 ± 3.37 42.58 ± 3.02 0.11 (–0.41, 0.63) 0.42 (58.50) 0.68 0.33 0.74 U. coverts 37.11 ± 1.65 36.14 ± 1.73 0.10 (–0.42, 0.63) 0.40 (58.76) 0.69 –0.01 0.99 Red

chroma Back 59.24 ± 1.49 58.02 ± 1.44 0.15 (–0.37, 0.67) 0.59 (58.97) 0.56 0.28 0.78 Breast 55.21 ± 1.39 53.65 ± 1.23 0.21 (–0.31, 0.74) 0.84 (58.38) 0.41 0.70 0.49 Crown 52.83 ± 1.24 53.25 ± 1.30 –0.06 (–0.59, 0.47) –0.23 (57.56) 0.82 –0.53 0.60 Rump 65.00 ± 1.68 63.27 ± 1.52 0.19 (–0.33, 0.72) 0.76 (58.63) 0.45 0.42 0.68 Throat 33.82 ± 0.67 33.71 ± 0.73 0.03 (–0.49, 0.55) 0.10 (58.31) 0.92 –0.34 0.74 U. coverts 44.59 ± 0.93 42.71 ± 0.78 0.40 (–0.13, 0.92) 1.55 (57.59) 0.130.92 0.37 of Rufous Hornero Mantel tests of dissimilarity matrices based on Euclidean distances and the variables´ mean reflectance, contrast and red chroma. -values were obtained based on 999 permutations. Sample size: 23 breeding pairs. Body region Mantel Back –0.03 0.53 Breast 0.01 0.42 Crown –0.02 0.52 Rump –0.05 0.63 Throat 0.13 0.14 U. coverts –0.10 0.80 urements between paired individuals of the Rufous Hornero = 23 breeding pairs. U. coverts: undertail-coverts Pearson correlation Body region/colour trait Mean reflectanceContrast Red chroma Back –0.23 (0.28) –0.17 (0.43) –0.21 (0.34) Breast –0.05 (0.81) –0.20 (0.36)

0.06 (0.78) Crown –0.08 (0.71) 0.17 (0.43) 0.13 (0.56) Rump –0.36 (0.10) –0.14 (0.53) –0.28 (0.19) Throat 0.08 (0.70) 0.009 (0.97) –0.11 (0.61) U. coverts 0.09 (0.68) –0.009 (0.97) 0.05 (0.81) of Table S5. Correlation of isolated size measurements between paired individuals of the Rufous Hornero We show results of Pearson correlation tests. = 23 breeding pairsSize variable ( Bill depth 0.35 0.10 Bill length 0.05 0.84 Bill width –0.44 0.04 Mass 0.03 0.89 Tail 0.05 0.82 Tarsus 0.02 0.92 Wing chord 0.26 0.23 Histogram generated by a Linear Discriminant Analysis showing discriminant function values for Rufous Hornero males and females. Positive LD1 values would indicate that an individual is a male, and negative LD1 values would indicate a female. of oi: 10.1071/MU15118_ Monochromatism, cryptic sexual dimorphism and lack of assortative mating in the A,B,C Pedro H. L. Ribeiro Gianlucca S. Rechand Regina H. MacedoPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade de Brasília, Laboratório de Comportamento Animal, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF 70910-900, Corresponding author. Email: pdadiniz@gmail.co