69 research outputs found

    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.

    No full text
    <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

    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.

    No full text
    <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.

    No full text
    <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.

    No full text
    <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 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.

    No full text
    <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.

    No full text
    <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

    Estimated coefficients (<i>β<sub>i</sub></i>), robust standard errors [SE] and 95% confidence intervals [CI] for top models describing log selection ratios for vertical (V) and horizontal (H) cover at grizzly bear resting sites in west-central Alberta, Canada as assessed by Δ<i><sub>i</sub></i> and <i>w<sub>i</sub></i>.

    No full text
    <p>Missing estimates refer to variables not present in the respective model. Estimates for which the confidence intervals do not overlap 0 are given in bold.</p><p>The following strata within variables were withheld as reference category:</p><p>Reclaimed mine (Land designation); Spring (Season); Diurnal (Time of day).</p

    Estimated coefficients (<i>β<sub>i</sub></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><sub>i</sub></i> and <i>w<sub>i</sub></i>.

    No full text
    <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 10<sup>3</sup> times its actual value.</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.

    No full text
    <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

    Relative probability of occurrence from AIC<sub>c</sub>-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.

    No full text
    <p>Relative probability of occurrence from AIC<sub>c</sub>-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
    • …
    corecore