Comparison of three sets (1 = log step-length, 2 = use of terrain ruggedness, 3 = use of forest by female elk as response variables, respectively) of Generalized Linear Mixed Models.

<p>The structure of the fixed component of the model was constant across models (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178082#pone.0178082.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> footnotes) with the only exception of age (not included, included) and age interacted with human-activity proxies (time of the day, distance from road, hunting season, and time of the week). All models had a random slope for true age and a random intercept for individual elk, as well as a random intercept for year–i.e., the best random effect structure selected in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178082#pone.0178082.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> –and were fit with Maximum-Likelihood estimation. Models indicated by an asterisk accounted for more than 0.90 of the Akaike weights and were further inspected for model averaging (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178082#pone.0178082.s003" target="_blank">S3 Table</a>).</p

Use of terrain ruggedness (in meters) in female elk as a function of age (range 1–20 years old) and hunting regime (no-hunting, bow, and rifle) as predicted by the linear mixed effect model.

<p>Ninety-five percent marginal confidence intervals are shown as shaded areas [sample size: n = 49 female elk, each of them contributing with telemetry relocations collected over 2 to 5 consecutive years].</p

Movement rate (step-length, i.e., distance in meters travelled every 2 hours, log-transformed) in female elk as a function of age (range 1–20 years old) and hunting regime (no-hunting, bow, and rifle) as predicted by the linear mixed effect model.

<p>Ninety-five percent marginal confidence intervals are shown as shaded areas [sample size: n = 49 female elk, each of them contributing with telemetry relocations collected over 2 consecutive years].</p

Use of terrain ruggedness (in meters) in female elk as a function of age (range 1–20 years old) and time of the day (night, dawn, day, and dusk) as predicted by the linear mixed effect model.

<p>Ninety-five percent marginal confidence intervals are shown as shaded areas [sample size: n = 49 female elk, each of them contributing with telemetry relocations collected over 2 to 5 consecutive years].</p

Set of generalized linear mixed effect models (Restricted Estimate of Maximum Likelihood) with different random structures and different measures of elk age, either allowing individuals to change behaviour between years or not.

<p>Elk have been monitored for multiple years, and the terminology ‘true age’ implies the actual age of the elk in a given year. The term ‘age at capture’ implies the age of the elk kept constant to that recorded at the beginning of the monitored period. ‘True age’ allows models to account for behavioural adjustments with age (learning), while ‘age at capture’ does not allow depicting learning processes. The 5 <i>a priori models</i> were run to explain the variability of three different response variables (log step-length, use of terrain ruggedness, use of forest). The top ranked structure (#5) selected using AIC was the same for all response variables. Because model selection was performed on models with different random effect structures, we opted to use the number of levels of the random effects minus 1 as the punishment for added random effects when calculating the AIC.</p

Use of terrain ruggedness (in meters) in female elk as a function of age (range 1–20 years old) and distance to road (distance higher or lower than 500 meters) as predicted by the linear mixed effect model.

<p>Ninety-five percent marginal confidence intervals are shown as shaded areas [sample size: n = 49 female elk, each of them contributing with telemetry relocations collected over 2 to 5 consecutive years].</p

Use of forest (0 = no forest, 1 = forest) in female elk as a function of age (range 1–20 years old) and distance to road (distance higher or lower than 500 meters) as predicted by the generalized linear mixed effect model.

<p>Ninety-five percent marginal confidence intervals are shown as shaded areas [sample size: n = 49 female elk, each of them contributing with telemetry relocations collected over 2 to 5 consecutive years].</p

Lek use in male and female fallow deer.

1<p>Females that did not visit a lek were excluded.</p><p>Lek use by radiocollared male and female fallow deer in the San Rossore Estate during 7 consecutive rutting periods. Lek use was computed combining direct lek observations with spatial data gathered by continuous and discontinuous radiotracking.</p

Predictions of three models on lek formation.

<p>Predictions of 3 models on lek formation related to field data collected in the San Rossore fallow deer population over 7 consecutive years. Two leks with more than 15 actively defended territories were present during the study.</p><p>Data sources:</p>1<p><i>direct observations on leks;</i></p>2<p><i>discontinuous radiotracking of females outside the rut;</i></p>3<p><i>continuous radiotracking of females before, during, and after the rut;</i></p>4<p><i>discontinuous radiotracking of females during the rut;</i></p>5<p><i>discontinuous radiotracking of males during and outside the rut;</i></p>6<p><i>marking activities collected outside the lek before, during, and after the rut.</i></p

Spatial relocations of male and female fallow deer.

<p>Spatial distribution of female fallow deer fixes (white dots) recorded during 7 consecutive years in San Rossore. Relocations collected during the autumn were those represented by black dots. The lek area, fenced areas (not available to deer), and coastal habitats unused by deer (<i>i.e.</i> maritime pine woods, degraded coastal zone, dune vegetation) were reported in the map.</p