Mean (SE) values of variables measured at the level of the den area, in 2 km circular buffers with and without wolf dens in Hamedan province, Iran.

<p>Comparisons between den areas and random areas were done by Mann–Whitney U-tests.</p><p>Mean (SE) values of variables measured at the level of the den area, in 2 km circular buffers with and without wolf dens in Hamedan province, Iran.</p

Distribution of gray wolf dens detected between 2011 and 2012 in Hamedan province, Iran.

<p>Wolf dens were overviewed in a context of topography and main roads in Hamedan province, Iran.</p

Relative importance (W+), model-averaged coefficient estimates (Estimate), and unconditional standard errors (SE) for the predictors included in the selected candidate models determining the probability of a given site being selected as a den site by wolves in Hamedan province, Iran (models with ΔAICc<2).

<p>For variables description see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0108080#pone-0108080-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>.</p><p>Relative importance (W+), model-averaged coefficient estimates (Estimate), and unconditional standard errors (SE) for the predictors included in the selected candidate models determining the probability of a given site being selected as a den site by wolves in Hamedan province, Iran (models with ΔAICc<2).</p

Selected candidate Generalized Linear Models explaining gray wolf den site selection patterns in Hamedan province, Iran, at the fine spatial scale.

<p>Models were ranked according to AICc, and only models with ΔAICc <2 are shown for simplicity. For variables description see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0108080#pone-0108080-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>.</p><p>Selected candidate Generalized Linear Models explaining gray wolf den site selection patterns in Hamedan province, Iran, at the fine spatial scale.</p

Relative importance (W+), model-averaged coefficient estimates (Estimate), and unconditional standard errors (SE) for the predictors included in the selected candidate models determining the probability of a given area being selected as a den area by wolves in Hamedan province, Iran (models with ΔAICc <2).

<p>For variables description see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0108080#pone-0108080-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p><p>Relative importance (W+), model-averaged coefficient estimates (Estimate), and unconditional standard errors (SE) for the predictors included in the selected candidate models determining the probability of a given area being selected as a den area by wolves in Hamedan province, Iran (models with ΔAICc <2).</p

Mean (SE) values of fine-scale variables measured in sample plots with and without wolf dens in Hamedan province, Iran.

<p>Comparisons between den sites and random sites were done by Mann–Whitney U-tests excepting for the proportion of presence of water bodies and farmlands within a 100m radius, which were evaluated using Z-proportions tests.</p><p>Mean (SE) values of fine-scale variables measured in sample plots with and without wolf dens in Hamedan province, Iran.</p

Parameter estimates (± s.e.) in the models testing the relationship between the mean and the maximum relative abundance of wolf marks (marks km⁻¹) and wolf reproduction.

<p>The level “month (August)” is included in the intercept.</p><p><i>* Significant at P<0.001.</i></p><p><i>Note that the covariate “number of transects” was not included in the model with the mean relative abundance index (see text for details).</i></p

Study area and sampling design.

<p>(a) Map showing the study area located in the Cantabrian Mountains (N Spain). (b) Scheme showing the spatial distribution of transects within a typical sampling site.</p

Predicted probability of presence of pups against the mean and the maximum relative abundance index of wolf marks.

<p>Continuous black and grey line refers to the mean and the maximum relative abundance index of wolf marks, respectively (± s.e., dotted lines). Striped line show the cutting point of 0.60; whereas the vertical black and grey bars show the cutting points of 0.80 and 0.99 for the mean and the maximum relative abundance index, respectively. Numbers for these cutting points refers to the number of wolf marks km⁻¹ for the mean (left) and the maximum (right) relative abundance index. For clarity, we also show a zoom (bottom) on these predicted probabilities, with lines denoting the correspondence between the established cutting points and the values of the relative abundance indexes, for the first range of values of the number of wolf marks km⁻¹.</p

Proportion of false positives (Type I error) using the 0.60, 0.80 and 0.99 cutting points for the predicted probability of wolf reproduction based on the mean and the maximum relative abundance index.

<p>Proportion of false positives (Type I error) using the 0.60, 0.80 and 0.99 cutting points for the predicted probability of wolf reproduction based on the mean and the maximum relative abundance index.</p