. 2006 Nov 15;6:96. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-6-96

Table 2.

Temporal assortative mating parameter estimates

Genotyping error	Parameter estimates									LRT

	$\hat{g}$ _-4	$\hat{g}$ _-3[CI]	$\hat{g}$ _-2[CI]	$\hat{g}$ _-1[CI]	g₀	$\hat{g}$ ₊₁[CI]	$\hat{g}$ ₊₂[CI]	$\hat{g}$ ₊₃	g₊₄	d.f.	K	P-value
Without	0	0.24 [0.06–0.96]	1.15 [0.05–24.78]	0.84 [0.12–5.97]	1.00	0.55 [0.10–3.19]	0.59 [0.03–10.77]	0	-	5	4.0	0.57
Low	0	0.16 [0.02–1.30]	1.44 [0.80–2.59]	1.72 [0.92–3.19]	1.00	0.35 [0.12–1.01]	0.15 [0.02–1.02]	0	-	5	20.4	< 0.001
High	0	0.17 [0.08–0.39]	1.41 [0.12–16.16]	1.55 [0.21–11.25]	1.00	0.51 [0.21–1.26]	0.07 [0.05–0.09]	0	-	5	37.0	< 10^-5

Assortative mating parameters relative to phenology (g) estimated under complete model (Equation 4) with Exp. Power kernel, and confidence intervals at 95% (CI). Indices for parameter estimates indicate the difference in number of phenological groups between the two parents (Father-Mother). The effect of relative phenology was tested by removing it (i.e. temporal panmixia) and comparing to the complete model by a LRT.