Table 2:

Model selection results comparing anthropogenic, habitat and global linear mixed-effects candidate models considered to explain grizzly bear body condition in Alberta, Canada

Model (i)	Candidate model	AIC	ΔAIC	wi	r2
Global	Anthropogenic model + habitat model	411.6	0.00	0.92	0.44 (0.56)
Habitat	Reproductive class + capture date + number of previous captures + habitat net-energy demand + crown closure (variance) + percentage of conifer + percentage of mixed and broadleaf tree cover + percentage of regenerating forest + percentage of shrub and herbaceous landcover + forest age + vegetation productivity + vegetation seasonality	416.7	5.13	0.10	0.37 (0.53)
Anthropogenic	Reproductive class + capture date + number of previous captures + habitat net-energy demand + density of forest harvest blocks + density of secondary linear features + roads (distance decay) + well sites (distance decay) + percentage of parks and protected areas	419.9	8.34	0.01	0.34 (0.47)

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; ΔAIC, difference in Akaike information criterion between the most supported model and the given model; the marginal r² and conditional (r²) for each candidate model; and w_i, weight of evidence for the ith model.