Skip to main content

TableĀ 2 Model selection results of the analysis of breeding territories vs. control areas (nĀ =Ā 73 pairs)

From: Rodent-avoidance, topography and forest structure shape territory selection of a forest bird

Hypothesis

Variables in model

LL

K

AICc

Ī”AICc

Weight

Forest structure

(a) Ground variables

Number of bushes, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2

āˆ’77.238

7

169.288

0

0.232

Ā 

Number of bushes, year, number of bushes x year, number of tussocks

āˆ’75.155

9

169.633

0.345

0.195

Ā 

Number of bushes, number of tussocks

āˆ’80.208

5

170.845

1.557

0.106

Ā 

Number of bushes, number of tussocks2, cover of herb layer2

āˆ’77.089

8

171.230

1.942

0.088

Ā 

ā€¦

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 
Ā 

Null

āˆ’101.199

3

208.568

39.280

0.000

(b) Tree variables

Number of trees, tree dbh

āˆ’87.397

5

185.224

0

0.158

Ā 

Number of trees, tree dbh, tree species diversity2

āˆ’85.854

7

186.520

1.297

0.083

Ā 

Number of trees, tree dbh, tree species diversity

āˆ’87.160

6

186.924

1.701

0.068

Ā 

ā€¦

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 
Ā 

Null

āˆ’101.199

3

208.568

23.345

0.000

(c) Tree species composition

Null

āˆ’101.199

3

208.568

0

0.114

Ā 

Proportion beech, propoprtion other deciduous trees, proportion conifers2

āˆ’97.099

7

209.01

0.442

0.091

Ā 

Proportion beech, propoprtion other deciduous trees, proportion conifers

āˆ’98.227

6

209.059

0.491

0.089

Ā 

Proportion beech

āˆ’100.459

4

209.202

0.634

0.083

Ā 

Proportion beech2, propoprtion other deciduous trees, proportion conifers2

āˆ’96.542

8

210.134

1.566

0.052

Rodent-avoidance

Rodent numbers, year, rodent numbers x year

āˆ’93.230

8

203.511

0

0.498

Ā 

Rodent numbers

āˆ’98.100

4

204.483

0.972

0.306

Ā 

Null

āˆ’101.199

3

208.568

5.057

0.040

Topography

Slope steepness

āˆ’91.564

4

191.412

0

0.558

Ā 

ā€¦

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 
Ā 

Null

āˆ’101.199

3

208.568

17.156

0

Across hypotheses

Slope steepness, rodent numbers, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees, number of bushes, tree dbh

āˆ’62.749

11

149.469

0

0.107

Ā 

Slope steepness, rodent numbers, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees, number of bushes

āˆ’63.958

10

149.545

0.076

0.103

Ā 

Slope steepness, rodent numbers, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees, tree dbh

āˆ’64.066

10

149.762

0.293

0.092

Ā 

Slope steepness, rodent numbers, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees

āˆ’65.448

9

150.220

0.751

0.073

Ā 

Slope steepness, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees, number of bushes

āˆ’65.976

9

151.275

1.806

0.043

Ā 

Slope steepness, rodent numbers, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees, tree dbh, tree species diversity2

āˆ’62.470

12

151.285

1.816

0.043

Ā 

Slope steepness, rodent numbers, number of tussocks, cover of herb layer2, number of trees, tree species diversity2

āˆ’63.658

11

151.287

1.817

0.043

Ā 

ā€¦

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 
Ā 

Null

āˆ’101.199

3

208.568

59.099

0.000

  1. For each hypothesis, the top-ranked model (Ī”AICcĀ =Ā 0), the models with Ī”AICcĀ <Ā 2 to the top-ranked model and the null model (referred to as ā€œnullā€) are shown. ā€œā€¦ā€ refers to additional models examined, but not listed in detail to avoid overlong table, as they were little informative
  2. The quadratic effect of a variable x, composed of a linear and a quadratic component (xĀ Ā±Ā x2), is denoted as x2
  3. LL log-likelihood, K number of parameters in the model (including random effects and intercept), weight Akaike weight (chance of the model to be the best one, given the candidate models)
Back to article page

BMC Ecology

ISSN: 1472-6785

Contact us