Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Supplementary information: Raw Data (five worksheets)

Raw data on which Statistical Analysis was performed. Five separate worksheets.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.508v2/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

Professor John Hutchinson acts as an Academic Editor for PeerJ.

Author Contributions

Luis P Lamas conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Russell P Main conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

John R. Hutchinson conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Birds were obtained from our ongoing research examining emu ontogenetic biomechanics (conducted with ethical approval under a UK Home Office license).

Funding

Our funding bodies are the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia-FCT (Portuguese Government-Foundation for Science and Technology) for PhD studentship funding for LPL (Grant Code SFRH/ BD/ 74439/ 2010), the Royal Veterinary College, and grant number BB/I02204X/1 from the British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies