Table 2. Datasets used in our global analysis of female white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) networka structure during the gestation periodb.
| Study area | Year | No. deer | Simultaneous locationsc | Network closenessd | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | No. combinations | |||
| Carbondale | 2005 | 6 | 740.8 | 72.3 | 2.81 | 0.21 | 15 |
| 2012 | 6 | 832.4 | 2.4 | 3.00 | 0 | 15 | |
| Lake Shelbyville | 2009 | 4 | 810.3 | 4.8 | 3.00 | NA | 1 |
| Crab Orchard | 2014 | 5 | 798.3 | 6.2 | 2.87 | 0.12 | 5 |
| Touch of Nature | 2012 | 13 | 804.1 | 39.0 | 2.09 | 0.74 | 715 |
| 2013 | 5 | 719.9 | 65.4 | 2.39 | 0.55 | 5 | |
| Rend Lake | 2014 | 4 | 716.3 | 90.6 | 3.17 | NA | 1 |
a We weighted network edges with the residuals of the linear relationship between association rate (the number of times two deer were with 25m of one another at the same time divided by the total number of simultaneous locations) and log home range overlap (volume of intersection).
b 1 Jan– 10 Mar.
c Mean number of simultaneous (within 3 minutes) locations across dyads.
d To compare network closeness among networks of different sizes, we subsampled our networks such that they contained 4 nodes. We calculated the average weighted closeness for all unique 4-node combinations of the original set of nodes. For example, the Carbondale 2012 study area had 6 nodes–we calculated the average weighted closeness across all 15 possible 4-node combinations.