The effects of group versus intensive housing on the retention of genetic diversity in insurance populations

BMC Zoology

Table 2 Summary of standardised predictors and their relative importance after conditional averaging of top models (all models within 2AIC_C) (see methods for details on predictors in each global model)

Response variable	Predictor variables^a	Coefficient	SE^b	CI 95% U	CI 95% L	RI^c
Male reproductive skew	Group housing	−0.65	0.39	0.11	−1.41	0.61
Male reproductive skew	Age	−0.47	0.35	0.22	−1.16	0.46
Female reproductive skew	Age	−2.47	0.90	−0.71	−4.23	1.00
	Group housing	−0.53	0.61	0.67	−1.73	0.27
	Body weight	−0.22	0.54	0.84	−1.28	0.20
Female litter size	Age	−0.12	0.05	−0.02	−0.22	0.29
Male reproductive success^d	Standardised weight	1.76	0.61	2.96	0.56	1.00
Male reproductive success^d	Age	−0.46	0.53	0.58	−1.50	0.32

All bold trials indicate enclosures that significantly deviated from equal siring success
^aStandardised predictors to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5; all bold predictor variables have confidence intervals that do not include zero
^bSE; standard error
^cRI; relative importance
^dModel uses data from group housing and does not include data from intensive housing

ISSN: 2056-3132