## 3 Results
### Inter-Year Variability  
Inter-year comparisons, made at Arrious and Peyreget sites, showed significant differences for only five of the eighteen tests (Figure 3). At NL, the HaDaily pseudo-median was lower in 2017 than in 2018 and 2019. At SH, the HaDaily pseudo-median was also lower in 2017 than in 2018. For one \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(p\)**-Value** & **Pseudo-Median [IC\({}_{95\%}\)]** & **PI** \\ \hline P vs. An\({}_{1}\) & \(1.06\times 10^{-2}\) & \(1.42\) [0.42; 2.25] & **P: 1.195, An\({}_{1}\): 0.902** \\ \hline P vs. An\({}_{2}\) & 0.187 & \(-0.58\) [\(-0.25\); 1.42] & **P: 1.195, An\({}_{2}\): 1.073** \\ \hline P vs. Ar\({}_{1}\) & \(2.23\times 10^{-4}\) & \(2.17\) [0.92; 3.17] & **P: 1.195, Ar\({}_{1}\): 0.730** \\ \hline P vs. Ar\({}_{2}\) & \(9.37\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.25\) [0.42; 2.17] & **P: 1.195, Ar\({}_{2}\): 0.897** \\ \hline An\({}_{1}\) vs. Ar\({}_{2}\) & \(9.49\times 10^{-3}\) & \(0.83\) [0.33; 1.33] & **An\({}_{1}\): 0.902, Ar\({}_{2}\): 0.730** \\ \hline An\({}_{1}\) vs. Ar\({}_{2}\) & \(0.975\) & \(0.00\) [\(-0.50\); 0.58] & **An\({}_{1}\): 0.902, Ar\({}_{2}\): 0.897** \\ \hline An\({}_{2}\) vs. Ar\({}_{1}\) & \(2.23\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.67\) [0.92; 2.33] & **An\({}_{2}\): 1.073, Ar\({}_{2}\): 0.730** \\ \hline An\({}_{2}\) vs. Ar\({}_{2}\) & \(2.09\times 10^{-2}\) & \(0.92\) [0.17; 1.42] & **An\({}_{2}\): 1.073, Ar\({}_{2}\): 0.897** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Wilcoxon Signed Rank bilateral tests for paired samples on the inter-site level. \(p\)-values have been corrected by the FDR method and are shown in Figure 3. The pseudo-medians of the daily activity hours differences and their 95% confidence interval as well as the associated persistence indices (PI) are also presented. Significant differences are in bold. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(p\)**-Value** & **Pseudo-Median [IC\({}_{95\%}\)]** & **PI** \\ \hline NH vs. SH in 2017 & \(9.43\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.25\) [0.50; 2.00] & **NH: 1.130, SH: 0.875** \\ \hline NH vs. SH in 2018 & \(0.218\) & \(-0.58\) [\(-1.33\); 0.25] & **NH: 1.050, SH: 1.154** \\ \hline NH vs. SH in 2019 & \(1.29\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.25\) [0.58; 1.92] & **NH: 1.304, SH: 1.032** \\ \hline NL vs. SL in 2017 & \(2.23\times 10^{-4}\) & \(-1.83\) [\(-2.58\); \(-1.00\)] & **NL: 0.750, SL: 1.148** \\ \hline NL vs. SL in 2018 & \(0.187\) & \(0.42\) [\(-0.17\); 0.83] & NL: 1.047, SL: 0.999 \\ \hline NL vs. SL in 2019 & \(0.476\) & \(0.25\) [\(-0.33\); 0.92] & NL: 1.021, SL: 0.968 \\ \hline NH vs. NL in 2017 & \(2.23\times 10^{-4}\) & \(1.67\) [0.83; 2.58] & **NH: 1.130, NL: 0.750** \\ \hline NH vs. NL in 2018 & \(0.902\) & \(0.08\) [\(-0.75\); 0.92] & **NH: 1.050, NL: 1.047** \\ \hline NH vs. NL in 2019 & \(9.49\times 10^{-3}\) & \(1.33\) [0.42; 2.25] & **NH: 1.304, NL: 1.021** \\ \hline SH vs. SL in 2017 & \(5.71\times 10^{-3}\) & \(-1.25\) [\(-2.00\); \(-0.50\)] & **SH: 0.875, SL: 1.148** \\ \hline SH vs. SL in 2018 & \(5.71\times 10^{-3}\) & \(0.75\) [0.33; 1.17] & **SH: 1.154, SL: 0.999** \\ \hline SH vs. SL in 2019 & \(0.436\) & \(0.25\) [\(-0.25\); 0.83] & **SH: 1.032, SL: 0.968** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Wilcoxon Signed Rank bilateral tests for paired samples on the inter-slope and inter-altitude levels. \(p\)-values have been corrected by the FDR method and are shown in Figure 3. The pseudo-medians of the daily activity hours differences and their 95% confidence interval as well as the associated persistence indices (PI) are also presented. Significant differences are in bold. of the two Angls replicates, the HaDaily pseudo-median was lower in 2019 than in 2017 and 2018. The significant HaDaily differences ranged from 1.08 to 2.25 h, which corresponds to half of the HaDaily\({}_{\text{ref}}\) of 4.5 h. They were associated with persistence indices ranging from 0.750 to 1.510.