Are toe fringes important for lizard burying in highly mobile sand?

Table 2 Regression weights of the path analysis result about sand burial performance of Phrynocephalus mystaceus

States	Path label			Estimate	S.E	C.R	P
Uncut	THS	←	TFA	− 0.178	0.089	− 1.989	0.047*
	THS	←	NHS	0.607	0.057	10.703	0.000***
	THS	←	2:4D	− 1.513	0.244	− 6.189	0.000***
	CS	←	AS	12.012	3.933	3.055	0.002**
	CS	←	NHS	− 4.486	0.939	− 4.778	0.000***
	CS	←	24D	− 11.329	2.812	− 4.029	0.000***
	CS	←	THS	− 4.996	1.363	− 3.666	0.000***
Bilateral cut	AW	←	MB	1.751	0.145	12.071	0.000***
	NHS	←	AS	3.66	1.76	2.079	0.038*
	NHS	←	AW	0.993	0.417	2.381	0.017*
	THS	←	NHS	0.569	0.174	3.281	0.001**
	2D:4D	←	AW	− 0.262	0.058	− 4.503	0.000***
	CS	←	AS	− 12.053	4.3	− 2.803	0.005**
	CS	←	MB	18.936	4.716	4.015	0.000***
	CS	←	AW	− 11.85	2.68	− 4.422	0.000***
	CS	←	NHS	− 6.116	0.527	− 11.608	0.000***
	CS	←	THS	− 1.781	0.454	− 3.926	0.000***
	CS	←	2D:4D	− 11.633	3.294	− 3.531	0.000***

Estimate represents the regression coefficient for each path (CS: comprehensive score; NHS: number of hind-limb swings; THS: time of hind-limb swings; TFA: the area of all toes; AS: angle of stability; 2D:4D: toe length ratio of 2D: 4D; MB: mouth breadth; AW: abdominal width). The standard errors of the estimates (Std. Error), t-value, and probability (P) were estimated using path analysis in Amos (v.24.0). Significance levels: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

ISSN: 1742-9994