Predicted relative red fox abundance in the Black Forest extrapolated from the results of the feces counts (left) and the camera traps (middle).

<p>Difference between the two predictions in percent (prediction from feces counts – prediction from camera trap, right). The left figure is reprinted from <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094537#pone.0094537-Gthlin1" target="_blank">[25]</a> under a CC BY license, with permission from Springer, original copyright 2013.</p

Map of the Black Forest.

<p>Transects of the feces counts (left): black rectangles indicate study rectangles, lines indicate transects searched (black: 2009, grey: 2010). Locations of the camera traps (right): grey circles indicate location of camera traps of the first session from 16.04. to 11.05.2012, black circles indicate locations of the second session from 24.05. till 15.06.2012. The left figure is reprinted from <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094537#pone.0094537-Gthlin1" target="_blank">[25]</a> under a CC BY license, with permission from Springer, original copyright 2013.</p

Economical costs associated with the index methods based on feces count (n = 262) and camera traps (n = 88).

<p>Economical costs associated with the index methods based on feces count (n = 262) and camera traps (n = 88).</p

Boxplots of the distribution of the observed values of the index variable (feces count on transect, number of photographs at camera location) and the landscape variables: diversity, edge density, soil quality and growing season for feces counts (n = 262 transects, A) and camera traps (n = 88 camera locations, B).

<p>Boxplots of the distribution of the observed values of the index variable (feces count on transect, number of photographs at camera location) and the landscape variables: diversity, edge density, soil quality and growing season for feces counts (n = 262 transects, A) and camera traps (n = 88 camera locations, B).</p

Relative variable importance (RI) and full model averaged regression coefficients (averaged β) of the averaged camera trap model and p-value of the subset averaged camera trap model. RI indicates the sum of the weights of all models (with ΔAIC_c<2), in which each variable was included.

<p>The confounder variables were not included in the selection process and hence are in all models (RI = 1).</p

Relative variable importance (RI) and full model averaged regression coefficients (averaged β) of the averaged feces count model and p-values of the subset averaged feces count model. RI indicates the sum of the weights of all models (with ΔAIC_c<2), in which each variable was included.

<p>The confounder variables were not included in the selection process and hence are in all models (RI = 1).</p

Observational test.

<p>Test parts in the order they were performed and definition of the behavior categories, behavior scores and test results (percentage of dogs that showed the behavior). The description of the test parts and the complete results are given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181303#pone.0181303.s003" target="_blank">S3 Table</a>. Scores were only given in test parts comparable with those of the behavior tests 1 and 2 (described in Döring et al. [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181303#pone.0181303.ref010" target="_blank">10</a>], <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181303#pone.0181303.s001" target="_blank">S1 Table</a>).</p

Correlation of specially selected variables that had been suggested to be related.

<p>Correlation of specially selected variables that had been suggested to be related.</p

Comparison of the personality scores (mean of the scores of Table 2) according to family situation of the new owner, i.e., according to the presence/absence of a child ≤15 years old (grandchild not included) and of another dog in the household.

<p>High scores indicate relaxed/desired behaviors.</p

Correlation of behavior scores between observational test (conducted 6 weeks after adoption) and behavior tests (Test 1 and Test 2, conducted before and 6 weeks after adoption, respectively) and between observational test and phone interviews (Interview 1 and Interview 2, conducted 1 and 12 weeks after adoption, respectively) and correlation of body language scores between observational test and both behavior tests.

<p>The scores of Test 1, Test 2, Interview 1 and Interview 2 are described in Döring et al. [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0181303#pone.0181303.ref010" target="_blank">10</a>].</p