MOESM1 of Hunting as a management tool? Cougar-human conflict is positively related to trophy hunting

Additional file 1: Table S1. Hypotheses for frequency of cougar-human conflict

Estimated coefficients (<i>β_i</i>), robust standard errors [SE] and 95% confidence intervals [CI] for top models describing the probability of occurrence for grizzly bear resting sites by land designation in west-central Alberta, Canada as assessed by Δ<i>_i</i> and <i>w_i</i>.

<p>[CI] did not overlap zero are given in bold. Missing estimates for habitat features refer to variables not present in the respective model. Estimates for which the </p><p>∧ Coefficient reported at 10³ times its actual value.</p

Summary of supported female cougar models for Human + Habitat, no cattle (a–l), Human + Habitat, with cattle (m–r) and Human + Habitat Interaction, no cattle (s–y).

<p>Models for Human + Habitat Interaction, with cattle did not receive any support.</p>*<p>Bold represents top model based on % deviance explained.</p>**<p>Bold represents top model ranked using ΔAICc.</p><p>× refers to interaction between variables.</p

Estimated cougar-human conflict location coefficients for male cougars in British Columbia.

a<p>Estimated coefficients, standard errors and confidence intervals reported at 1000 times their actual values.</p>b<p>Estimated coefficients, standard errors and confidence intervals reported at 100,000 times their actual values.</p

Top model predictions for the relative probability of cougar-human conflict in British Columbia.

<p>(A) Top ▵AICc male model, (B) Top % deviance explained male model, (C) Top ▵AICc female model, (D) Top % deviance explained female model, (E) Top ▵AICc population-level model, (F) Top % deviance explained population-level model. Predictions were based on conflict data for 1998–2007 (female <i>n</i> = 222; male <i>n</i> = 222).</p

Estimated coefficients (<i>β_i</i>), robust standard errors [SE] and 95% confidence intervals [CI] for categorical habitat models describing the probability of occurrence for grizzly bear resting sites by land designation in west-central Alberta, Canada.

<p>[CI] did not overlap zero are given in bold. Estimates for which the </p><p> Dense conifer was withheld as a reference category.</p

Estimated cougar-human conflict location coefficients for female cougars in British Columbia.

a<p>Estimated coefficients, standard errors and confidence intervals reported at 1000 times their actual value.</p>b<p>Estimated coefficients, standard errors and confidence intervals reported at 100,000 times their actual value.</p

Summary of supported male cougar models for Human + Habitat, no cattle (a–e), Human + Habitat, with cattle (f–g), Human + Habitat Interaction, no cattle (h-n) and Human + Habitat Interaction, with cattle (o).

*<p>Bold represents top model based on % deviance explained.</p>**<p>Bold represents top model ranked using ΔAICc.</p><p>× refers to interaction between variables.</p

Relative probability of occurrence from AIC_c-selected grizzly bear resting-site selection models on reclaimed mines (A), protected areas (B), and Crown lands (C) in west-central Alberta, Canada, given horizontal cover.

<p>Relative probability of occurrence from AIC_c-selected grizzly bear resting-site selection models on reclaimed mines (A), protected areas (B), and Crown lands (C) in west-central Alberta, Canada, given horizontal cover.</p

Predicted relative probability of cougar-human conflict in British Columbia.

<p>Predicted relative probability is based on variables from (A) Top male ▵AICc model, (B) Top % deviance explained male model, (C) Top ▵AICc female model, and (D) Top % deviance explained female model. Prediction for males are in blue and for females in red. Inset map illustrates conflict predictions for Vancouver Island, with elevation set as transparent in the background. For the inset only the top ▵AICc population-level model predictions are shown due to closely matching predictions with the correponding top % deviance explained model.</p