Appendix C. Supporting video files of model dynamics.

Supporting video files of model dynamics

Appendix B. Extended infectiousness.

Extended infectiousness

Appendix A. Supporting figures of model structure and output.

Supporting figures of model structure and output

Appendix B. Standardized regression coefficients for two models, each aiming to predict the volume of intersection in summer.

Standardized regression coefficients for two models, each aiming to predict the volume of intersection in summer

Data_MacNultyetalPLOSONE

Counts of the number of times wolves in different-sized hunting groups attempted and succeeded to attack and capture bison in Yellowstone National Park, 1996-2013. These are the frequency data presented in Figure 2 of the article

Appendix C. Mean pack size tends to increase with total population density for the Northern Range wolf population (1996–2011).

Mean pack size tends to increase with total population density for the Northern Range wolf population (1996–2011)

Ethogram of wolf predatory behavior.

<p>Ethogram of wolf predatory behavior.</p

Effects of hunting group size on the probability that wolves attack (a) and capture (b), bison.

<p>Open circles are population-averaged fitted values with 95% confidence intervals from the best-fit GLMM models of hunting success (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0112884#pone.0112884.s001" target="_blank">Table S1</a>). The estimated coefficients before and after each breakpoint are: 0.52±0.15 (<i>P</i><0.001) and 0.11±0.07 (<i>P</i> = 0.10) (a); 0.34±0.09 (<i>P</i><0.001) and −0.21±0.32 (<i>P</i> = 0.50) (b). The number of wolf-bison encounters included in each analysis is: 218 (a) and 106 (b). Filled circles are observed frequencies with sample size indicated above each point. Analyses were performed on the raw binary data and not the illustrated data points, which are provided as a visual aid.</p

Behavior of wolves hunting bison: (a) approach, (b) attack-individual, (c, d) capture (see <b>Table 1</b> for definitions).

<p>“Attacking” is the transition from (a) to (b), and “capturing” is the transition from (b) to (c, d). (Photo credit: Daniel Stahler, Douglas Smith).</p

Comparative effects of group size on the success of wolves attacking (a) and capturing (b) bison and elk.

<p>Lines are population-averaged fitted values from the best-fit GLMMs of wolves hunting bison (Fig. 2a–b in this study; N = 106–218 wolf-bison encounters) and elk (Fig. 1a, 1c in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0112884#pone.0112884-MacNulty1" target="_blank">[10]</a>; N = 235–355 wolf-elk encounters). Slopes were statistically different from zero before each breakpoint (β = 0.34–0.52, SE  = 0.09–0.19, <i>P</i><0.001–0.05) but not after (β =  −0.21–0.11, SE  = 0.05–0.32, <i>P</i>>0.10–0.50), indicating that success was effectively constant beyond each breakpoint. Shaded areas (dark  =  bison; light  =  elk) highlight uncertainty about the location of each breakpoint as identified in the confidence set of spline models (ΔAICc <2) for each analysis (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0112884#pone.0112884.s001" target="_blank">Table S1a–b</a> in this study; <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0112884#pone.0112884.s001" target="_blank">Table S1a and S1c</a> in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0112884#pone.0112884-MacNulty1" target="_blank">[10]</a>). Identical methods were used to collect and analyze data for each species.</p