<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.109</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.636</td><td>-0.793</td><td>-0.488</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.17</td><td>-0.412</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.864</td><td>0.259</td><td>1.458</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.757</td><td>0.467</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.78</td><td>1.274</td><td>2.283</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.527</td><td>0.177</td><td>0.899</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.341</td><td>0.545</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.542</td><td>0.241</td><td>0.841</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.162</td><td>-0.564</td><td>0.253</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.756</td><td>0.39</td><td>1.138</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.096</td><td>1.089</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.612</td><td>0.319</td><td>0.908</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.206</td><td>-0.134</td><td>0.561</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.629</td><td>0.227</td><td>1.055</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.096</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.352</td><td>0.115</td><td>0.567</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.421</td><td>-0.831</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.669</td><td>0.543</td><td>0.812</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.411</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.2 MODEL 2: HETEROGENEOUS SPECIES VARIANCES
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.109</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.636</td><td>-0.793</td><td>-0.488</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.17</td><td>-0.412</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.864</td><td>0.259</td><td>1.458</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.757</td><td>0.467</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.78</td><td>1.274</td><td>2.283</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.527</td><td>0.177</td><td>0.899</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.11</td><td>-0.341</td><td>0.545</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.542</td><td>0.241</td><td>0.841</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.162</td><td>-0.564</td><td>0.253</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.756</td><td>0.39</td><td>1.138</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.096</td><td>1.089</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.612</td><td>0.319</td><td>0.908</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.206</td><td>-0.134</td><td>0.561</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.629</td><td>0.227</td><td>1.055</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.096</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.352</td><td>0.115</td><td>0.567</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.421</td><td>-0.831</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.669</td><td>0.543</td><td>0.812</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.411</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.2 MODEL 2: HETEROGENEOUS SPECIES VARIANCES
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Posterior mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival heterogenety</td><td>-1.19</td><td>-1.339</td><td>-1.041</td></tr><tr><td>survival sex female</td><td>-0.189</td><td>-0.291</td><td>-0.088</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.298</td><td>-0.502</td><td>-0.057</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.53</td><td>-1.018</td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.134</td><td>-0.359</td><td>0.094</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.351</td><td>-0.807</td><td>0.111</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.59</td><td>-0.868</td><td>-0.308</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.391</td><td>-0.786</td><td>-0.003</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>-0.002</td><td>-0.257</td><td>0.274</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.553</td><td>-0.867</td><td>-0.22</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.852</td><td>-1.168</td><td>-0.512</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.545</td><td>-0.896</td><td>-0.143</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.158</td><td>-0.393</td><td>0.084</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.137</td><td>-0.458</td><td>0.232</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.544</td><td>-0.846</td><td>-0.233</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.824</td><td>-1.203</td><td>-0.443</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>-0.007</td><td>-0.231</td><td>0.247</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.132</td><td>-0.547</td><td>0.308</td></tr><tr><td>survival site sigma</td><td>0.394</td><td>0.303</td><td>0.493</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma</td><td>0.288</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.493</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma S. atricapilla</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.235</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.991</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma A. scripaceus</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.312</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Posterior mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival heterogenety</td><td>-1.19</td><td>-1.339</td><td>-1.041</td></tr><tr><td>survival sex female</td><td>-0.189</td><td>-0.291</td><td>-0.088</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.298</td><td>-0.502</td><td>-0.057</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.53</td><td>-1.018</td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.134</td><td>-0.359</td><td>0.094</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.351</td><td>-0.807</td><td>0.111</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.59</td><td>-0.868</td><td>-0.308</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.391</td><td>-0.786</td><td>-0.003</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>-0.002</td><td>-0.257</td><td>0.274</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.553</td><td>-0.867</td><td>-0.22</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.852</td><td>-1.168</td><td>-0.512</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.545</td><td>-0.896</td><td>-0.143</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.158</td><td>-0.393</td><td>0.084</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.137</td><td>-0.458</td><td>0.232</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.544</td><td>-0.846</td><td>-0.233</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.824</td><td>-1.203</td><td>-0.443</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>-0.007</td><td>-0.231</td><td>0.247</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.132</td><td>-0.547</td><td>0.308</td></tr><tr><td>survival site sigma</td><td>0.394</td><td>0.303</td><td>0.493</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma</td><td>0.288</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.493</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma S. atricapilla</td><td>0.078</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.235</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.991</td></tr><tr><td>survival year sigma A. scripaceus</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.312</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Posterior mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survial year sigma C. cetti</td><td>0.587</td><td>0.204</td><td>1.092</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma E. rubecula</td><td>0.141</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.393</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma H. polyglotta</td><td>0.317</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.856</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.522</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. major</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.537</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. collybita</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.154</td><td>0.728</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. trochilus</td><td>0.306</td><td>0.026</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. modularis</td><td>0.166</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma S. borin</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.105</td><td>0.777</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma S. communis</td><td>0.196</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.524</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma T. troglodytes</td><td>0.209</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.612</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma T. merula</td><td>0.272</td><td>0.079</td><td>0.504</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma T. philomelos</td><td>0.424</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>recapture sex female</td><td>-0.623</td><td>-0.773</td><td>-0.472</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.149</td><td>-0.392</td><td>0.074</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.825</td><td>0.194</td><td>1.482</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.772</td><td>0.484</td><td>1.055</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.719</td><td>1.248</td><td>2.203</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.556</td><td>0.203</td><td>0.914</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.112</td><td>-0.312</td><td>0.561</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.555</td><td>0.249</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.17</td><td>-0.58</td><td>0.234</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.728</td><td>0.347</td><td>1.124</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Posterior mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survial year sigma C. cetti</td><td>0.587</td><td>0.204</td><td>1.092</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma E. rubecula</td><td>0.141</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.393</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma H. polyglotta</td><td>0.317</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.856</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.522</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. major</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.537</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. collybita</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.154</td><td>0.728</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. trochilus</td><td>0.306</td><td>0.026</td><td>0.71</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma P. modularis</td><td>0.166</td><td>0.011</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma S. borin</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.105</td><td>0.777</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma S. communis</td><td>0.196</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.524</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma T. troglodytes</td><td>0.209</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.612</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma T. merula</td><td>0.272</td><td>0.079</td><td>0.504</td></tr><tr><td>survial year sigma T. philomelos</td><td>0.424</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>recapture sex female</td><td>-0.623</td><td>-0.773</td><td>-0.472</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.149</td><td>-0.392</td><td>0.074</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.825</td><td>0.194</td><td>1.482</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.772</td><td>0.484</td><td>1.055</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.719</td><td>1.248</td><td>2.203</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.556</td><td>0.203</td><td>0.914</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.112</td><td>-0.312</td><td>0.561</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.555</td><td>0.249</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.17</td><td>-0.58</td><td>0.234</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.728</td><td>0.347</td><td>1.124</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Posterior mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.574</td><td>0.081</td><td>1.057</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.625</td><td>0.344</td><td>0.896</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.185</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.529</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.043</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.608</td><td>0.07</td><td>1.157</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.105</td><td>0.572</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.413</td><td>-0.84</td><td>-0.013</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.661</td><td>0.533</td><td>0.796</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.161</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.3 MODEL 3: MIGRATION

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>b1</td><td>-1.181</td><td>-1.33</td><td>-1.027</td></tr><tr><td>phi.sex[2]</td><td>-0.178</td><td>-0.278</td><td>-0.078</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.277</td><td>-0.51</td><td>-0.043</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.558</td><td>-1.003</td><td>-0.092</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.126</td><td>-0.364</td><td>0.118</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.347</td><td>-0.669</td><td>-0.02</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.577</td><td>-0.849</td><td>-0.296</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.369</td><td>-0.7</td><td>-0.04</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.005</td><td>-0.242</td><td>0.261</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.534</td><td>-0.848</td><td>-0.212</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.869</td><td>-1.139</td><td>-0.582</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Posterior mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.574</td><td>0.081</td><td>1.057</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.625</td><td>0.344</td><td>0.896</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.185</td><td>-0.16</td><td>0.529</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.23</td><td>1.043</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.608</td><td>0.07</td><td>1.157</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.105</td><td>0.572</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.413</td><td>-0.84</td><td>-0.013</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.661</td><td>0.533</td><td>0.796</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.161</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.3 MODEL 3: MIGRATION

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>b1</td><td>-1.181</td><td>-1.33</td><td>-1.027</td></tr><tr><td>phi.sex[2]</td><td>-0.178</td><td>-0.278</td><td>-0.078</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.277</td><td>-0.51</td><td>-0.043</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.558</td><td>-1.003</td><td>-0.092</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.126</td><td>-0.364</td><td>0.118</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.347</td><td>-0.669</td><td>-0.02</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.577</td><td>-0.849</td><td>-0.296</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.369</td><td>-0.7</td><td>-0.04</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.005</td><td>-0.242</td><td>0.261</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.534</td><td>-0.848</td><td>-0.212</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.869</td><td>-1.139</td><td>-0.582</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.567</td><td>-0.889</td><td>-0.225</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.144</td><td>-0.377</td><td>0.106</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.179</td><td>-0.455</td><td>0.113</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.538</td><td>-0.824</td><td>-0.238</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.816</td><td>-1.179</td><td>-0.439</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>-0.007</td><td>-0.227</td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.134</td><td>-0.471</td><td>0.213</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.site</td><td>0.387</td><td>0.299</td><td>0.482</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.147</td><td>0.499</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.groupe</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.008</td><td>0.219</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.173</td><td>0.083</td><td>0.255</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.635</td><td>-0.785</td><td>-0.484</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.169</td><td>-0.405</td><td>0.061</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.854</td><td>0.227</td><td>1.492</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.746</td><td>0.452</td><td>1.039</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.774</td><td>1.297</td><td>2.243</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.543</td><td>0.176</td><td>0.904</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.107</td><td>-0.316</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.548</td><td>0.253</td><td>0.846</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.181</td><td>-0.572</td><td>0.243</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.756</td><td>0.372</td><td>1.141</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.078</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.567</td><td>-0.889</td><td>-0.225</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.144</td><td>-0.377</td><td>0.106</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.179</td><td>-0.455</td><td>0.113</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.538</td><td>-0.824</td><td>-0.238</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.816</td><td>-1.179</td><td>-0.439</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>-0.007</td><td>-0.227</td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.134</td><td>-0.471</td><td>0.213</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.site</td><td>0.387</td><td>0.299</td><td>0.482</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.147</td><td>0.499</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.groupe</td><td>0.087</td><td>0.008</td><td>0.219</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.173</td><td>0.083</td><td>0.255</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.635</td><td>-0.785</td><td>-0.484</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.169</td><td>-0.405</td><td>0.061</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.854</td><td>0.227</td><td>1.492</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.746</td><td>0.452</td><td>1.039</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.774</td><td>1.297</td><td>2.243</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.543</td><td>0.176</td><td>0.904</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.107</td><td>-0.316</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.548</td><td>0.253</td><td>0.846</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.181</td><td>-0.572</td><td>0.243</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.756</td><td>0.372</td><td>1.141</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.078</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.613</td><td>0.327</td><td>0.887</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.213</td><td>-0.128</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.628</td><td>0.206</td><td>1.047</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.594</td><td>0.069</td><td>1.139</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.118</td><td>0.569</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.413</td><td>-0.831</td><td>-0.001</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.667</td><td>0.539</td><td>0.806</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.386</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.4 MODEL 4: SPRING CLIMATE

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>b1</td><td>-1.18</td><td>-1.324</td><td>-1.031</td></tr><tr><td>phi.sex[2]</td><td>-0.181</td><td>-0.281</td><td>-0.081</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.321</td><td>-0.557</td><td>-0.09</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.596</td><td>-1.029</td><td>-0.151</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.159</td><td>-0.399</td><td>0.096</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.389</td><td>-0.699</td><td>-0.056</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.624</td><td>-0.898</td><td>-0.344</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.41</td><td>-0.747</td><td>-0.064</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>-0.024</td><td>-0.258</td><td>0.241</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.568</td><td>-0.876</td><td>-0.217</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.613</td><td>0.327</td><td>0.887</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.213</td><td>-0.128</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.628</td><td>0.206</td><td>1.047</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.594</td><td>0.069</td><td>1.139</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.118</td><td>0.569</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.413</td><td>-0.831</td><td>-0.001</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.667</td><td>0.539</td><td>0.806</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.386</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.4 MODEL 4: SPRING CLIMATE

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>b1</td><td>-1.18</td><td>-1.324</td><td>-1.031</td></tr><tr><td>phi.sex[2]</td><td>-0.181</td><td>-0.281</td><td>-0.081</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.321</td><td>-0.557</td><td>-0.09</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.596</td><td>-1.029</td><td>-0.151</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.159</td><td>-0.399</td><td>0.096</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.389</td><td>-0.699</td><td>-0.056</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.624</td><td>-0.898</td><td>-0.344</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.41</td><td>-0.747</td><td>-0.064</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>-0.024</td><td>-0.258</td><td>0.241</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.568</td><td>-0.876</td><td>-0.217</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.892</td><td>-1.146</td><td>-0.622</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.576</td><td>-0.894</td><td>-0.24</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.174</td><td>-0.405</td><td>0.067</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.206</td><td>-0.481</td><td>0.069</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.566</td><td>-0.852</td><td>-0.273</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.866</td><td>-1.224</td><td>-0.498</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>-0.035</td><td>-0.246</td><td>0.195</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.157</td><td>-0.516</td><td>0.204</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.site</td><td>0.397</td><td>0.305</td><td>0.496</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps</td><td>0.313</td><td>0.186</td><td>0.507</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.097</td><td>0.257</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_1</td><td>0.036</td><td>-0.041</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_2</td><td>-0.005</td><td>-0.014</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_3</td><td>0</td><td>-0.043</td><td>0.047</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_4</td><td>0.018</td><td>-0.013</td><td>0.051</td></tr><tr><td>A_prec_1</td><td>0.016</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.091</td></tr><tr><td>A_prec_2</td><td>0.036</td><td>-0.006</td><td>0.077</td></tr><tr><td>A_temp_1</td><td>0.007</td><td>-0.092</td><td>0.107</td></tr><tr><td>A_temp_2</td><td>0.032</td><td>-0.017</td><td>0.084</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.634</td><td>-0.783</td><td>-0.479</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.178</td><td>-0.439</td><td>0.057</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.235</td><td>1.501</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.742</td><td>0.407</td><td>1.032</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.892</td><td>-1.146</td><td>-0.622</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.576</td><td>-0.894</td><td>-0.24</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.174</td><td>-0.405</td><td>0.067</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.206</td><td>-0.481</td><td>0.069</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.566</td><td>-0.852</td><td>-0.273</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.866</td><td>-1.224</td><td>-0.498</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>-0.035</td><td>-0.246</td><td>0.195</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.157</td><td>-0.516</td><td>0.204</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.site</td><td>0.397</td><td>0.305</td><td>0.496</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps</td><td>0.313</td><td>0.186</td><td>0.507</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.097</td><td>0.257</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_1</td><td>0.036</td><td>-0.041</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_2</td><td>-0.005</td><td>-0.014</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_3</td><td>0</td><td>-0.043</td><td>0.047</td></tr><tr><td>A_int_temp_prec_4</td><td>0.018</td><td>-0.013</td><td>0.051</td></tr><tr><td>A_prec_1</td><td>0.016</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.091</td></tr><tr><td>A_prec_2</td><td>0.036</td><td>-0.006</td><td>0.077</td></tr><tr><td>A_temp_1</td><td>0.007</td><td>-0.092</td><td>0.107</td></tr><tr><td>A_temp_2</td><td>0.032</td><td>-0.017</td><td>0.084</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.634</td><td>-0.783</td><td>-0.479</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.178</td><td>-0.439</td><td>0.057</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.235</td><td>1.501</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.742</td><td>0.407</td><td>1.032</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.776</td><td>1.281</td><td>2.259</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.542</td><td>0.182</td><td>0.921</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.109</td><td>-0.336</td><td>0.551</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.537</td><td>0.235</td><td>0.823</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.207</td><td>-0.647</td><td>0.226</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.725</td><td>0.322</td><td>1.118</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.559</td><td>0.059</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.193</td><td>-0.175</td><td>0.546</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.611</td><td>0.172</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.609</td><td>0.066</td><td>1.144</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.326</td><td>0.061</td><td>0.567</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.444</td><td>-0.879</td><td>0.007</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.661</td><td>0.523</td><td>0.808</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.181</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.444</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.5 MODEL 5: WINTER CLIMATE

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>b1</td><td>-1.182</td><td>-1.331</td><td>-1.033</td></tr><tr><td>phi.sex[2]</td><td>-0.177</td><td>-0.28</td><td>-0.073</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.346</td><td>-0.607</td><td>-0.09</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.632</td><td>-1.098</td><td>-0.164</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.113</td><td>-0.381</td><td>0.141</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.776</td><td>1.281</td><td>2.259</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.542</td><td>0.182</td><td>0.921</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.109</td><td>-0.336</td><td>0.551</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.537</td><td>0.235</td><td>0.823</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.207</td><td>-0.647</td><td>0.226</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.725</td><td>0.322</td><td>1.118</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.559</td><td>0.059</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.289</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.193</td><td>-0.175</td><td>0.546</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.611</td><td>0.172</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.609</td><td>0.066</td><td>1.144</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.326</td><td>0.061</td><td>0.567</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.444</td><td>-0.879</td><td>0.007</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.661</td><td>0.523</td><td>0.808</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.181</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.444</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 1.5 MODEL 5: WINTER CLIMATE

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>b1</td><td>-1.182</td><td>-1.331</td><td>-1.033</td></tr><tr><td>phi.sex[2]</td><td>-0.177</td><td>-0.28</td><td>-0.073</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.346</td><td>-0.607</td><td>-0.09</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>-0.632</td><td>-1.098</td><td>-0.164</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>-0.113</td><td>-0.381</td><td>0.141</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.339</td><td>-0.659</td><td>-0.018</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.639</td><td>-0.942</td><td>-0.32</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.407</td><td>-0.779</td><td>-0.046</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.022</td><td>-0.236</td><td>0.293</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.538</td><td>-0.866</td><td>-0.211</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.937</td><td>-1.239</td><td>-0.646</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.541</td><td>-0.876</td><td>-0.193</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.132</td><td>-0.382</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.238</td><td>-0.538</td><td>0.068</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.594</td><td>-0.911</td><td>-0.285</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.807</td><td>-1.174</td><td>-0.424</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>0.001</td><td>-0.236</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.137</td><td>-0.487</td><td>0.212</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.site</td><td>0.392</td><td>0.307</td><td>0.488</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps</td><td>0.279</td><td>0.103</td><td>0.489</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.groupe</td><td>0.112</td><td>0.007</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.107</td><td>0.263</td></tr><tr><td>B_nao_1</td><td>0.009</td><td>-0.135</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>B_nao_2</td><td>-0.016</td><td>-0.141</td><td>0.093</td></tr><tr><td>B sr_1</td><td>0.022</td><td>-0.133</td><td>0.174</td></tr><tr><td>B sr_2</td><td>0.074</td><td>-0.067</td><td>0.219</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.639</td><td>-0.792</td><td>-0.489</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>survival intercept C. cetti</td><td>-0.339</td><td>-0.659</td><td>-0.018</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept E. rubecula</td><td>-0.639</td><td>-0.942</td><td>-0.32</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>-0.407</td><td>-0.779</td><td>-0.046</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.022</td><td>-0.236</td><td>0.293</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. major</td><td>-0.538</td><td>-0.866</td><td>-0.211</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. collybita</td><td>-0.937</td><td>-1.239</td><td>-0.646</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. trochilus</td><td>-0.541</td><td>-0.876</td><td>-0.193</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept P. modularis</td><td>-0.132</td><td>-0.382</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. borin</td><td>-0.238</td><td>-0.538</td><td>0.068</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept S. communis</td><td>-0.594</td><td>-0.911</td><td>-0.285</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>-0.807</td><td>-1.174</td><td>-0.424</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. merula</td><td>0.001</td><td>-0.236</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>survival intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.137</td><td>-0.487</td><td>0.212</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.site</td><td>0.392</td><td>0.307</td><td>0.488</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps</td><td>0.279</td><td>0.103</td><td>0.489</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.groupe</td><td>0.112</td><td>0.007</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.phi.temps.species</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.107</td><td>0.263</td></tr><tr><td>B_nao_1</td><td>0.009</td><td>-0.135</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>B_nao_2</td><td>-0.016</td><td>-0.141</td><td>0.093</td></tr><tr><td>B sr_1</td><td>0.022</td><td>-0.133</td><td>0.174</td></tr><tr><td>B sr_2</td><td>0.074</td><td>-0.067</td><td>0.219</td></tr><tr><td>p.sex[2]</td><td>-0.639</td><td>-0.792</td><td>-0.489</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.176</td><td>-0.413</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.838</td><td>0.228</td><td>1.468</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.744</td><td>0.427</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.781</td><td>1.305</td><td>2.267</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.515</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.881</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.062</td><td>-0.366</td><td>0.503</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.536</td><td>0.239</td><td>0.823</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.178</td><td>-0.598</td><td>0.222</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.739</td><td>0.346</td><td>1.129</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.573</td><td>0.071</td><td>1.066</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.603</td><td>0.311</td><td>0.878</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.203</td><td>-0.145</td><td>0.545</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.196</td><td>1.019</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.586</td><td>0.038</td><td>1.151</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.347</td><td>0.108</td><td>0.568</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.406</td><td>-0.834</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.663</td><td>0.535</td><td>0.806</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.196</td><td>0.024</td><td>0.442</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>mean</th><th>2.50%</th><th>97.50%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>recapture intercept S. atricapilla</td><td>-0.176</td><td>-0.413</td><td>0.049</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. schoenobaenus</td><td>0.838</td><td>0.228</td><td>1.468</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept A. scripaceus</td><td>0.744</td><td>0.427</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept C. cetti</td><td>1.781</td><td>1.305</td><td>2.267</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept E. rubecula</td><td>0.515</td><td>0.142</td><td>0.881</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept H. polyglotta</td><td>0.062</td><td>-0.366</td><td>0.503</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept L. megarhynchos</td><td>0.536</td><td>0.239</td><td>0.823</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. major</td><td>-0.178</td><td>-0.598</td><td>0.222</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. collybita</td><td>0.739</td><td>0.346</td><td>1.129</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. trochilus</td><td>0.573</td><td>0.071</td><td>1.066</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept P. modularis</td><td>0.603</td><td>0.311</td><td>0.878</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. borin</td><td>0.203</td><td>-0.145</td><td>0.545</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept S. communis</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.196</td><td>1.019</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. troglodytes</td><td>0.586</td><td>0.038</td><td>1.151</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. merula</td><td>0.347</td><td>0.108</td><td>0.568</td></tr><tr><td>recapture intercept T. philomelos</td><td>-0.406</td><td>-0.834</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.site</td><td>0.663</td><td>0.535</td><td>0.806</td></tr><tr><td>sigma.p.temps</td><td>0.196</td><td>0.024</td><td>0.442</td></tr></tbody></table>
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
# APPENDIX S8. ROBUSTNESS OF INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY ESTIMATION TO UNBALANCED SAMPLE SIZES AMONG SPECIES

## 1.1 THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM

In our dataset, species were unevenly represented. Four species cumulated 51% of all individuals, and 52% of all inter-annual recaptures (Fig. S1). In principle our models account for the unbalanced sample sizes by allowing different species to have different residual variances (that is, variances in the random effects species-by-year). If the modelling of the random Species-by-Year term had failed to account for these unbalanced sample sizes, synchrony could indeed be the result of a methodological bias, and not of an actual biological process. It would indeed assess the synchrony of survival between individuals – and not between species – individuals being likely more synchronous within species than between species.

## 1.2 AN EMPIRICAL APPRAISAL USING DATA RESAMPLING

### Methods

To assess this potential role of species uneven contribution in spuriously generating survival synchrony, we generated a more balanced dataset, where the number of individuals for the four dominating species (Fig. S1) was reduced to have an equivalent number of individuals to that of the three following most abundant species (about 1200 individuals; Fig. S1). Individuals to be deleted were chosen randomly.

### Results
# APPENDIX S8. ROBUSTNESS OF INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY ESTIMATION TO UNBALANCED SAMPLE SIZES AMONG SPECIES

## 1.1 THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM

In our dataset, species were unevenly represented. Four species cumulated 51% of all individuals, and 52% of all inter-annual recaptures (Fig. S1). In principle our models account for the unbalanced sample sizes by allowing different species to have different residual variances (that is, variances in the random effects species-by-year). If the modelling of the random Species-by-Year term had failed to account for these unbalanced sample sizes, synchrony could indeed be the result of a methodological bias, and not of an actual biological process. It would indeed assess the synchrony of survival between individuals – and not between species – individuals being likely more synchronous within species than between species.

## 1.2 AN EMPIRICAL APPRAISAL USING DATA RESAMPLING

### Methods

To assess this potential role of species uneven contribution in spuriously generating survival synchrony, we generated a more balanced dataset, where the number of individuals for the four dominating species (Fig. S1) was reduced to have an equivalent number of individuals to that of the three following most abundant species (about 1200 individuals; Fig. S1). Individuals to be deleted were chosen randomly.

### Results
Estimates of ICC between the original and the reduced datasets were relatively close: 73% [63–85] and 61% [48–78], respectively. We can safely conclude that the observed temporal synchrony between species is an actual biological process, and is not generated by uneven species representation in the dataset.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Number of individuals per species in the total mark-recapture dataset. For assessing the robustness of survival synchrony estimates to uneven species contributions, a balanced dataset</figcaption></figure>
Estimates of ICC between the original and the reduced datasets were relatively close: 73% [63–85] and 61% [48–78], respectively. We can safely conclude that the observed temporal synchrony between species is an actual biological process, and is not generated by uneven species representation in the dataset.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Number of individuals per species in the total mark-recapture dataset. For assessing the robustness of survival synchrony estimates to uneven species contributions, a balanced dataset</figcaption></figure>
was generated so that the most numerous species were limited to a maximal contribution to the dataset of 1200 individuals (dotted line).

## 1.3 AN EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION USING SIMULATED DATA

The primary goal of this section is to test the idea that among-species heterogeneity in sample size might bias the estimation of synchrony among species. The verbal argument behind this concern is that the time-dynamic of the most common species might “spill over” the estimation of the time-dynamic common to all species. A suggested solution to this problem has been not to model synchrony explicitly, so that the model does not contain an across-species time-dynamic, but instead to estimate species-specific time dynamics independently, and reconstruct the synchrony a posteriori. Technically, this would be done by fitting a Species-by-Year random interaction without fitting the main random effect of time (but fitting the main random effect of species).

However, theory suggests that mixed models are generally able to handle unbalanced data, and that the estimation of synchrony should not be biased by unequal sample sizes (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000). Moreover, theory also suggests that the “solution” of not modeling synchrony explicitly but, instead, by reconstructing it *a posteriori* from model estimates is flawed and will generally lead to underestimation (Hadfield et al., 2010, Houslay & Wilson, 2017).

Here, we test that these two expectations hold for the special case of the mixed mark-recapture model structure used in the present study (Model 1), and that the results presented in the main text do not suffer from a bias due to unequal sample size among species. To this end, we first simulate multi-species mark-recapture data with synchrony among species (section 4.3.2) or with
was generated so that the most numerous species were limited to a maximal contribution to the dataset of 1200 individuals (dotted line).

## 1.3 AN EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION USING SIMULATED DATA

The primary goal of this section is to test the idea that among-species heterogeneity in sample size might bias the estimation of synchrony among species. The verbal argument behind this concern is that the time-dynamic of the most common species might “spill over” the estimation of the time-dynamic common to all species. A suggested solution to this problem has been not to model synchrony explicitly, so that the model does not contain an across-species time-dynamic, but instead to estimate species-specific time dynamics independently, and reconstruct the synchrony a posteriori. Technically, this would be done by fitting a Species-by-Year random interaction without fitting the main random effect of time (but fitting the main random effect of species).

However, theory suggests that mixed models are generally able to handle unbalanced data, and that the estimation of synchrony should not be biased by unequal sample sizes (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000). Moreover, theory also suggests that the “solution” of not modeling synchrony explicitly but, instead, by reconstructing it *a posteriori* from model estimates is flawed and will generally lead to underestimation (Hadfield et al., 2010, Houslay & Wilson, 2017).

Here, we test that these two expectations hold for the special case of the mixed mark-recapture model structure used in the present study (Model 1), and that the results presented in the main text do not suffer from a bias due to unequal sample size among species. To this end, we first simulate multi-species mark-recapture data with synchrony among species (section 4.3.2) or with
no synchrony among species (section 4.3.3). We use the same sample size per year and per species as in the real data. We then analyze the simulated data either with a model that explicitly contains synchrony, or with a model that does not contain explicit synchrony but only allows for its reconstruction from species-specific estimates.

We first show that when interspecific synchrony is present in simulated data, a model explicitly modeling interspecific synchrony can recover it (section 4.3.2.1). We then show that on the same data, a model that does not explicitly model synchrony, but instead makes its estimation possible a posteriori underestimates synchrony (section 4.3.2.2). Finally, we show that the first model (explicitly modeling synchrony) does not detect synchrony if none is simulated in the data (section 4.3.3). The R code necessary to run these simulations is provided in the Zenodo repository (Ghislain et al. 2022).

## 1.3.2 DATA WITH STRONG INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY

### 1.3.2.1 Interaction model with explicit interspecific synchrony

Plotting these predictions, the synchrony is well recovered graphically as species-specific survival probabilities through years are parallel (Fig S2).
no synchrony among species (section 4.3.3). We use the same sample size per year and per
species as in the real data. We then analyze the simulated data either with a model that explicitly
contains synchrony, or with a model that does not contain explicit synchrony but only allows for
its reconstruction from species-specific estimates.

We first show that when interspecific synchrony is present in simulated data, a model explicitly modeling interspecific synchrony can recover it (section 4.3.2.1). We then show that on the same data, a model that does not explicitly model synchrony, but instead makes its estimation possible a posteriori underestimates synchrony (section 4.3.2.2). Finally, we show that the first model (explicitly modeling synchrony) does not detect synchrony if none is simulated in the data (section 4.3.3). The R code necessary to run these simulations is provided in the Zenodo repository (Ghislain et al. 2022).

1.3.2 DATA WITH STRONG INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY

1.3.2.1 *Interaction model with explicit interspecific synchrony*

Plotting these predictions, the synchrony is well recovered graphically as species-specific
survival probabilities through years are parallel (Fig S2).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S2. Predicted latent values for survival for all species and years. The model used for predictions explicitly modeled interspecific synchrony, and the data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony. Interspecific synchrony is well recovered by the model, as evidenced by the parallel time-dynamics among species.</figcaption></figure>

The intra-Class correlation is close to one (posterior mode = 0.972, see Fig. S3).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S2. Predicted latent values for survival for all species and years. The model used for predictions explicitly modeled interspecific synchrony, and the data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony. Interspecific synchrony is well recovered by the model, as evidenced by the parallel time-dynamics among species.</figcaption></figure>

The intra-Class correlation is close to one (posterior mode = 0.972, see Fig. S3).
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

FIG. S3. Probability density distributions of the intra-class correlation (ICC) of Year, measuring the proportion of Year-variation in survival rate that is common to all bird species. Data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony (ICC close to one). Prior and posterior distributions are shown.

Note that the synchrony is apparent not only on the logit scale, but also on the scale of the data (Fig. S4).
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

FIG. S3. Probability density distributions of the intra-class correlation (ICC) of Year, measuring the proportion of Year-variation in survival rate that is common to all bird species. Data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony (ICC close to one). Prior and posterior distributions are shown.

Note that the synchrony is apparent not only on the logit scale, but also on the scale of the data (Fig. S4).
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S4. Predicted survival probability by species and by year. Data were simulated with a strong synchrony (ICC close to one). The model used for prediction explicitly modeled synchrony.</figcaption></figure>

### 1.3.2.2 Interactive model without explicit interspecific synchrony

We analyze the same data, but this time using a model that does not explicitly contain synchrony, that is, the model does not contain a year random effect, but only a species random effect and a year-by-species random effect. Graphically, much less synchrony is apparent (Fig. S5, S6).
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S4. Predicted survival probability by species and by year. Data were simulated with a strong synchrony (ICC close to one). The model used for prediction explicitly modeled synchrony.</figcaption></figure>

### 1.3.2.2 Interactive model without explicit interspecific synchrony

We analyze the same data, but this time using a model that does not explicitly contain synchrony, that is, the model does not contain a year random effect, but only a species random effect and a year-by-species random effect. Graphically, much less synchrony is apparent (Fig. S5, S6).
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S5. Predicted latent values for survival for all species and years. The model used for predictions did not model explicit interspecific synchrony but allow for it with a Species-by-Year random interaction, and the data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony. Interspecific synchrony is poorly recovered by the model, as evidenced by the lack of parallel time-dynamics among species.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S5. Predicted latent values for survival for all species and years. The model used for predictions did not model explicit interspecific synchrony but allow for it with a Species-by-Year random interaction, and the data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony. Interspecific synchrony is poorly recovered by the model, as evidenced by the lack of parallel time-dynamics among species.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

FIG. S6. Predicted survival probability by species and by year. Data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony (ICC close to one). The model used for prediction did not explicitly model interspecific synchrony.

The intra class correlation (ratio of temporal variance common to all species over the total temporal variance) is weak and close to zero (ICC point estimate = 0.127).
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S6. Predicted survival probability by species and by year. Data were simulated with a strong interspecific synchrony (ICC close to one). The model used for prediction did not explicitly model interspecific synchrony.</figcaption></figure>

The intra class correlation (ratio of temporal variance common to all species over the total temporal variance) is weak and close to zero (ICC point estimate = 0.127).
### 1.3.3 MODEL OUTPUT WHEN USING DATA WITH NO INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY

We now simulate data without any synchrony to check whether a model would detect spurious synchrony because of the over-abundance of some species. That is, there is an effect of species and species-specific year effects on survival, but no year effects common to species. Each species has its own time variability in survival probability. We fit the model with explicit synchrony.

Note that this model does not account for the heterogeneity in time variance among species that we simulated.

Graphically, no synchrony is apparent (Fig. S7, S8), what matches the data-generating process that did not have any synchrony.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
### 1.3.3 MODEL OUTPUT WHEN USING DATA WITH NO INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY

We now simulate data without any synchrony to check whether a model would detect spurious synchrony because of the over-abundance of some species. That is, there is an effect of species and species-specific year effects on survival, but no year effects common to species. Each species has its own time variability in survival probability. We fit the model with explicit synchrony.

Note that this model does not account for the heterogeneity in time variance among species that we simulated.

Graphically, no synchrony is apparent (Fig. S7, S8), what matches the data-generating process that did not have any synchrony.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
FIG. S7. Predicted latent values for survival for all species and years. The model used for predictions explicitly modeled interspecific synchrony, and the data were simulated without any interspecific synchrony. The model correctly identifies the lack of interspecific synchrony, as evidenced by the non-parallel year-dynamics among species.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

FIG. S8. Predicted survival probability by species and by year. Data were simulated without any interspecific synchrony (ICC close to zero). The model used for prediction explicitly modeled interspecific synchrony.
FIG. S7. Predicted latent values for survival for all species and years. The model used for predictions explicitly modeled interspecific synchrony, and the data were simulated without any interspecific synchrony. The model correctly identifies the lack of interspecific synchrony, as evidenced by the non-parallel year-dynamics among species.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

FIG. S8. Predicted survival probability by species and by year. Data were simulated without any interspecific synchrony (ICC close to zero). The model used for prediction explicitly modeled interspecific synchrony.
The intra-Class correlation is close to zero (ICC = 0.0714, Fig. S9) as expected.

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S9. Probability density distributions of the intra-class correlation (ICC) of Year, measuring the proportion of Year-variation in survival rate that is common to all bird species. Data were simulated without any interspecific synchrony (ICC close to zero). Prior and posterior distributions are shown.</figcaption></figure>

In conclusion, the model does not detect spurious interspecific synchrony when none exists in the data generating process, despite heterogeneity in species sample sizes and in species variability.
The intra-Class correlation is close to zero (ICC = 0.0714, Fig. S9) as expected.

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S9. Probability density distributions of the intra-class correlation (ICC) of Year, measuring the proportion of Year-variation in survival rate that is common to all bird species. Data were simulated without any interspecific synchrony (ICC close to zero). Prior and posterior distributions are shown.</figcaption></figure>

In conclusion, the model does not detect spurious interspecific synchrony when none exists in the data generating process, despite heterogeneity in species sample sizes and in species variability.
## Literature Cited

Ghislain, M., Bonnet, T., Godeau, U., Dehorter, O., Gimenez, O., & Henry, P.-Y. (2022). Novel code for: Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8172390

Hadfield, J.D., A.J Wilson., D. Garant, B.C. Sheldon, and L.E.B. Kruuk. 2010. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. The American Naturalist 175:116–125.

Houslay, T.M. and A.J. Wilson. 2017. Avoiding the misuse of BLUP in behavioural ecology. Behavioural Ecology 28:948-952.

Julliard, R. 2004. Estimating the Contribution of Survival and Recruitment to Large Scale Population Dynamics. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (1): 417–26.

Pinheiro, J.C. & Bates, D.M. 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing Series. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
## Literature Cited

Ghislain, M., Bonnet, T., Godeau, U., Dehorter, O., Gimenez, O., & Henry, P.-Y. (2022). Novel code for: Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8172390

Hadfield, J.D., A.J Wilson., D. Garant, B.C. Sheldon, and L.E.B. Kruuk. 2010. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. The American Naturalist 175:116–125.

Houslay, T.M. and A.J. Wilson. 2017. Avoiding the misuse of BLUP in behavioural ecology. Behavioural Ecology 28:948-952.

Julliard, R. 2004. Estimating the Contribution of Survival and Recruitment to Large Scale Population Dynamics. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (1): 417–26.

Pinheiro, J.C. & Bates, D.M. 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing Series. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
APPENDIX S9. ROBUSTNESS OF THE INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY
ESTIMATE TO A TEMPORAL TREND IN SURVIVAL

To assess the potential contribution of a temporal trend in annual survival to synchrony, we included in Model 1 a linear Year effect on survival probability, common to all species (additive effect). This linear effect of Year proved to be statistically significant and negative (see the example of the Eurasian blackcap in Fig. S1). Estimate of ICC of the model with linear Year effect is smaller than in the original model: 56% [48–66] *versus* 73% [63–85] respectively, but still high. We can conclude that, even if part of the interspecific synchrony can be attributed to a temporal decline in adult survival (common to all species), the rest of yearly variations in survival were highly synchronous across species.
APPENDIX S9. ROBUSTNESS OF THE INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY
ESTIMATE TO A TEMPORAL TREND IN SURVIVAL

To assess the potential contribution of a temporal trend in annual survival to synchrony, we
included in Model 1 a linear Year effect on survival probability, common to all species (additive
effect). This linear effect of Year proved to be statistically significant and negative (see the
example of the Eurasian blackcap in Fig. S1). Estimate of ICC of the model with linear Year
effect is smaller than in the original model: 56% [48–66] *versus* 73% [63–85] respectively, but
still high. We can conclude that, even if part of the interspecific synchrony can be attributed to a
temporal decline in adult survival (common to all species), the rest of yearly variations in
survival were highly synchronous across species.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Inter-annual fluctuations of local survival probabilities of adult male Eurasian blackcap with and without correction for temporal trend (respectively dotted lines black and grey). The black solid line represents the linear, temporal trend in adult survival probability for the Eurasian blackcap.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Inter-annual fluctuations of local survival probabilities of adult male Eurasian blackcap with and without correction for temporal trend (respectively dotted lines black and grey). The black solid line represents the linear, temporal trend in adult survival probability for the Eurasian blackcap.</figcaption></figure>
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
APPENDIX S10. ROBUSTNESS OF THE INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY
ESTIMATE TO PRIOR DISTRIBUTION

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Prior and estimated posterior probability density distributions of the intra-class correlation (ICC) for Year (see Methods). This figure shows estimation from real data. The posterior probability distribution shows no overlap with the parameter values with high prior probability, showing that the prior had no meaningful influence on estimation.</figcaption></figure>
APPENDIX S10. ROBUSTNESS OF THE INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY
ESTIMATE TO PRIOR DISTRIBUTION

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Prior and estimated posterior probability density distributions of the intra-class correlation (ICC) for Year (see Methods). This figure shows estimation from real data. The posterior probability distribution shows no overlap with the parameter values with high prior probability, showing that the prior had no meaningful influence on estimation.</figcaption></figure>
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
# APPENDIX S11. DIFFERENT CONTRIBUTIONS OF YEARS TO INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY

## Methods

Some years may contribute more to interspecific synchrony than others, e.g. because of extreme conditions for all species. The random structures that we modelled assumed that all Year-Species random effects come from a single normal distribution, which prevents from formally computing year-specific variances in Year-Species effects from model estimates (Hadfield et al. 2010, Houslay and Wilson 2017, see Appendix S8: section 1.3). A formal estimation of yearly contributions to interspecific synchrony was computationally challenging and required more data than were available. As an alternative, we considered proxy indicators of the importance of some years using our model, by looking at the year-specific deviations common to all species (i.e., the components of $\sigma_{\delta}^2$, defined in Methods), and at the variance in Year-Species deviations within each year (i.e, the components of $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2$ in each year). The latter calculation is conservative because the model assumes all Year-Species deviations come from a single distribution common to all years, and should have limited power to detect differences in the spread of the deviations among years.

## Results

The presented, *ad hoc* approach based on model estimates failed to identify yearly contributions: the 16 year-specific $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2$ estimates ranged from 0.032 to 0.040, with their respective 95% credible intervals all covering at least [0.01–0.06] (Fig S1).
# APPENDIX S11. DIFFERENT CONTRIBUTIONS OF YEARS TO INTERSPECIFIC SYNCHRONY

## Methods

Some years may contribute more to interspecific synchrony than others, e.g. because of extreme conditions for all species. The random structures that we modelled assumed that all Year-Species random effects come from a single normal distribution, which prevents from formally computing year-specific variances in Year-Species effects from model estimates (Hadfield et al. 2010, Houslay and Wilson 2017, see Appendix S8: section 1.3). A formal estimation of yearly contributions to interspecific synchrony was computationally challenging and required more data than were available. As an alternative, we considered proxy indicators of the importance of some years using our model, by looking at the year-specific deviations common to all species (i.e., the components of $\sigma_{\delta}^2$, defined in Methods), and at the variance in Year-Species deviations within each year (i.e, the components of $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2$ in each year). The latter calculation is conservative because the model assumes all Year-Species deviations come from a single distribution common to all years, and should have limited power to detect differences in the spread of the deviations among years.

## Results

The presented, *ad hoc* approach based on model estimates failed to identify yearly contributions: the 16 year-specific $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2$ estimates ranged from 0.032 to 0.040, with their respective 95% credible intervals all covering at least [0.01–0.06] (Fig S1).
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Variances in year-species random deviations per year. The horizontal lines indicate the global estimate for the standard deviation in the random effect species-year, all with 95% credible intervals.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S1. Variances in year-species random deviations per year. The horizontal lines indicate the global estimate for the standard deviation in the random effect species-year, all with 95% credible intervals.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S2. Predictions of the deviation for the random effect Year on survival probability (with 95% credible intervals). The dashed line indicates the mean.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>FIG. S2. Predictions of the deviation for the random effect Year on survival probability (with 95% credible intervals). The dashed line indicates the mean.</figcaption></figure>
**Literature Cited**

Hadfield, J.D., A.J Wilson., D. Garant, B.C. Sheldon, and L.E.B. Kruuk. 2010. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. The American Naturalist 175:116–125.

Houslay, T.M. and A.J. Wilson. 2017. Avoiding the misuse of BLUP in behavioural ecology.
Behavioural Ecology 28:948-952.
## Literature Cited

Hadfield, J.D., A.J Wilson., D. Garant, B.C. Sheldon, and L.E.B. Kruuk. 2010. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. The American Naturalist 175:116–125.

Houslay, T.M. and A.J. Wilson. 2017. Avoiding the misuse of BLUP in behavioural ecology. Behavioural Ecology 28:948-952.
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
**Supporting Information for:**

Authors:

Manon Ghislain, Timothée Bonnet, Ugoline Godeau, Olivier Dehorter, Olivier Gimenez, and Pierre-Yves Henry

Title:

**Synchrony in adult survival is remarkably strong among common temperate songbirds across France**

Journal: Ecology
APPENDIX S12. LIST OF DATA CONTRIBUTORS

The following bird banders have provided data for the present study:

ALLART Renaud, ANDRE Mathieu, ANDRE Régis, AUBRY Philippe, AUDEVARD Aurélien, BARBOIRON Aurelie, BAROTEAUX Frédéric, BAUMANN Marc, BAUWIN Jérémy, BEAUVAIS Dominique, BEAUVALLET Yves, BELLENOUE Stéphane, BENOIT-GONIN Olivier, BESNAULT Jacques, BIRARD Julien, BLACHE Sebastien, BOERE Gérard, BOILEAU Nicolas, BORIE Michel, BOULESTEIX Pascal, BOUSQUET Jean-François, BOUZENDORF François, BRACQUART Savina, BRUCY Laurent, BULENS Pierre, CALOIN Frédéric, CANEVET Marie-Françoise, CANNESSON Philippe, CAPARROS Olivier, CARDONNEL Sylvain, CARON Pierre, CARRIER Laurent, CARRUETTE Philippe, CAVALIER François, CAVALLIN Pascal, CEBE Nicolas, CHABLE Patrick, CHAMPION Mikael, CHANCHUS Bernard, CHARBONNIER Yohan, CHARLOT André, CHAUBY Xavier, CHAUSSI Gérard, CHENY Gildas, CHIRON François, COCHARD Nicolas, COHEZ Vincent, COMMECY Xavier, COUILLENS Bertrand, COULEE Thierry, COURANT Sylvain, COUZI Laurent, DAURAT Vincent, DE FRANCESCHI Christophe, DEBRABANT Charlotte, DECORY Patrick, DEHORTER Olivier, DELAMAERE Marie, DELAPORTE Philippe, DELORME Quentin, DEMONGIN Laurent, DEROO Serge, DICHAMP Michel, DOUMERET Alain, DUFOUR Sébastien, DUFRESNE Laurent, DUGUE Hubert, DUMEIGE Bruno, DUPONCHEEL Camille, DUPOUX Etienne, DUPUY Frédéric, DURIEZ Olivier, DURLET Pierre, DUTILLEUL Simon, FAUCON Laurent, FIQUET Pierre, FLAMANT Nicolas, FLITTI Amine, FONTAINE Benoît, FONTANILLES Philippe, FORTIN Matthieu, FOUCHER Julien, FREBOURG Patrick, GABET Ludivine, GALLIEN Fabrice, GARCIN Roger, GAUTIER Sébastien, GENTRIC Alain, GHISLAIN Manon, GIRAUDOT Etienne, GIZART Luc, GONIN Julien, GOUJON Gérard, GOULEVANT Cyril, GRAFEUILLE Didier, GRAND Brigitte, GROLLEAU Gérard, GRUWIER Xavier, GUERBAA Karim, GUILLO Jean-claude, GUYOT Gaétan, GUYOT Matthieu, HARDY Alain, HAVET Samuel, HEMERY David, HENRY Pierre-Yves, HERAULT Thomas, HEROGUEL Clement, HIRTZMANN Thierry, HOF Constant, HUMBERT François, IBANEZ Franck, ILIOU Bernard, INGOUF Claude, ITTY Christian, JACOB Hervé, JACOB Yann, JACOB Yannick, JANKOVIC Marko, JEAN BAPTISTE James, JENN Henri, JIGUET Frédéric, JOACHIM Jean, JOMAT Loic, JOUAIRE Stéphane, JOUVEL Marie, JUILLARD Boris, JULLIARD Romain, KERBIRIOU Christian, KOENIG Paul, LABIDOIRE Guy, LACORRE Benoit, LAPIOS Jean-Michel, LATRAUBE Franck, LAVAL Benoit, LAVOGIEZ David, LE BIHAN Cyrille, LE GUILLOU Gilles, LECONTE Michel, LEPRETRE Adrien, LERAY Gilles, LERY Jean-Pierre, LEUCHTMANN Maxime, LOÏS Grégoire, LOOSE David, LORRILLIERE Romain, LORTHIOIS Matthieu, MAINGUENEAU Jérémy, MANIGOLD Christian, MARTAYAN Fabien, MASSEZ Grégoire, MAURICE Claude, MAYS Gilles, MEGUIN Jean, MENUS Olivier, MERCIER Fabien, MICHELAT Jean-Marie, MIGOT Pierre, MINERY Nicolas, MONCHATRE Robin, MOREAU Gaston, MORGAN John, MOUSSUS Jean-Pierre, MOYON Claude, MULOT Patrick, MUSSEAU Raphaël, NABAIS Sylvie, NORE Thérèse, OLLIVIER Philippe, PALLIER Gilbert, PARMENTIER Emmanuel, PAUCOT Christian, PERROI Pierre-Yves, PIGEON Joël, PIN Christophe, PIOTTE Pierre, PITOIS Johann, PLAT Romuald, POURREAU Jo, PREVOST Michel, PRINTEMPS Thierry, PROVOST Pascal,
APPENDIX S12. LIST OF DATA CONTRIBUTORS

The following bird banders have provided data for the present study:

ALLART Renaud, ANDRE Mathieu, ANDRE Régis, AUBRY Philippe, AUDEVARD Aurélien, BARBOIRON Aurelie, BAROTEAUX Frédéric, BAUMANN Marc, BAUWIN Jérémy, BEAUVAIS Dominique, BEAUVALLET Yves, BELLENOUE Stéphane, BENOIT-GONIN Olivier, BESNAULT Jacques, BIRARD Julien, BLACHE Sebastien, BOERE Gérard, BOILEAU Nicolas, BORIE Michel, BOULESTEIX Pascal, BOUSQUET Jean-François, BOUZENDORF François, BRACQUART Savina, BRUCY Laurent, BULENS Pierre, CALOIN Frédéric, CANEVET Marie-Françoise, CANNESSON Philippe, CAPARROS Olivier, CARDONNEL Sylvain, CARON Pierre, CARRIER Laurent, CARRUETTE Philippe, CAVALIER François, CAVALLIN Pascal, CEBE Nicolas, CHABLE Patrick, CHAMPION Mikael, CHANCHUS Bernard, CHARBONNIER Yohan, CHARLOT André, CHAUBY Xavier, CHAUSSI Gérard, CHENY Gildas, CHIRON François, COCHARD Nicolas, COHEZ Vincent, COMMECY Xavier, COUILLENS Bertrand, COULEE Thierry, COURANT Sylvain, COUZI Laurent, DAURAT Vincent, DE FRANCESCHI Christophe, DEBRABANT Charlotte, DECORY Patrick, DEHORTER Olivier, DELAMAERE Marie, DELAPORTE Philippe, DELORME Quentin, DEMONGIN Laurent, DEROO Serge, DICHAMP Michel, DOUMERET Alain, DUFOUR Sébastien, DUFRESNE Laurent, DUGUE Hubert, DUMEIGE Bruno, DUPONCHEEL Camille, DUPOUX Etienne, DUPUY Frédéric, DURIEZ Olivier, DURLET Pierre, DUTILLEUL Simon, FAUCON Laurent, FIQUET Pierre, FLAMANT Nicolas, FLITTI Amine, FONTAINE Benoît, FONTANILLES Philippe, FORTIN Matthieu, FOUCHER Julien, FREBOURG Patrick, GABET Ludivine, GALLIEN Fabrice, GARCIN Roger, GAUTIER Sébastien, GENTRIC Alain, GHISLAIN Manon, GIRAUDOT Etienne, GIZART Luc, GONIN Julien, GOUJON Gérard, GOULEVANT Cyril, GRAFEUILLE Didier, GRAND Brigitte, GROLLEAU Gérard, GRUWIER Xavier, GUERBAA Karim, GUILLO Jean-claude, GUYOT Gaétan, GUYOT Matthieu, HARDY Alain, HAVET Samuel, HEMERY David, HENRY Pierre-Yves, HERAULT Thomas, HEROGUEL Clement, HIRTZMANN Thierry, HOF Constant, HUMBERT François, IBANEZ Franck, ILIOU Bernard, INGOUF Claude, ITTY Christian, JACOB Hervé, JACOB Yann, JACOB Yannick, JANKOVIC Marko, JEAN BAPTISTE James, JENN Henri, JIGUET Frédéric, JOACHIM Jean, JOMAT Loic, JOUAIRE Stéphane, JOUVEL Marie, JUILLARD Boris, JULLIARD Romain, KERBIRIOU Christian, KOENIG Paul, LABIDOIRE Guy, LACORRE Benoit, LAPIOS Jean-Michel, LATRAUBE Franck, LAVAL Benoit, LAVOGIEZ David, LE BIHAN Cyrille, LE GUILLOU Gilles, LECONTE Michel, LEPRETRE Adrien, LERAY Gilles, LERY Jean-Pierre, LEUCHTMANN Maxime, LOÏS Grégoire, LOOSE David, LORRILLIERE Romain, LORTHIOIS Matthieu, MAINGUENEAU Jérémy, MANIGOLD Christian, MARTAYAN Fabien, MASSEZ Grégoire, MAURICE Claude, MAYS Gilles, MEGUIN Jean, MENUS Olivier, MERCIER Fabien, MICHELAT Jean-Marie, MIGOT Pierre, MINERY Nicolas, MONCHATRE Robin, MOREAU Gaston, MORGAN John, MOUSSUS Jean-Pierre, MOYON Claude, MULOT Patrick, MUSSEAU Raphaël, NABAIS Sylvie, NORE Thérèse, OLLIVIER Philippe, PALLIER Gilbert, PARMENTIER Emmanuel, PAUCOT Christian, PERROI Pierre-Yves, PIGEON Joël, PIN Christophe, PIOTTE Pierre, PITOIS Johann, PLAT Romuald, POURREAU Jo, PREVOST Michel, PRINTEMPS Thierry, PROVOST Pascal,
PROVOST Romain, PROVOST Sébastien, RAITIERE Willy, REEBER Sébastien, REGNIER Marie-Claire, ROGER Thierry, RONDEL Stéphanie, ROUSSEAU Pierre, SALMON Franck, SAUVAGE Alain, SAVIN François, SCAAR Bertrand, SCHMITTER Lucien, SECHET Emmanuel, SELIQUER Pierre, SENECAL Didier, SENECHAL Cyril, SIBILLE Jean-Luc, SOURDRILLE Kévin, SPONGA Arnaud, STEIMER François, TARDIVO Gérard, TERNOIS Vincent, TEULIERE Jean-Michel, TEURQUETY Fabrice, THEILLOUT Amandine, THOUY Pèire, TILLO Stéphan, TOULOTTE Fabien, TRON François, URBINA-TOBIAS Patrice, URIOT Sylvain, VAN ACKER Bernard, VAN HECKE Benoît, VASLIN Matthieu, VEILLE Frantz, VENTROUX Julien, VIALLET Melchior, VIGOUR David, VRIGNAUD Nicolas, WILLIAMSON Thomas, WROBEL Sophie, ZEDDAM Pascal, ZUCCA Maxime.
PROVOST Romain, PROVOST Sébastien, RAITIERE Willy, REEBER Sébastien, REGNIER Marie-Claire, ROGER Thierry, RONDEL Stéphanie, ROUSSEAU Pierre, SALMON Franck, SAUVAGE Alain, SAVIN François, SCAAR Bertrand, SCHMITTER Lucien, SECHET Emmanuel, SELIQUER Pierre, SENECAL Didier, SENECHAL Cyril, SIBILLE Jean-Luc, SOURDRILLE Kévin, SPONGA Arnaud, STEIMER François, TARDIVO Gérard, TERNOIS Vincent, TEULIERE Jean-Michel, TEURQUETY Fabrice, THEILLOUT Amandine, THOUY Pèire, TILLO Stéphan, TOULOTTE Fabien, TRON François, URBINA-TOBIAS Patrice, URIOT Sylvain, VAN ACKER Bernard, VAN HECKE Benoît, VASLIN Matthieu, VEILLE Frantz, VENTROUX Julien, VIALLET Melchior, VIGOUR David, VRIGNAUD Nicolas, WILLIAMSON Thomas, WROBEL Sophie, ZEDDAM Pascal, ZUCCA Maxime.