Table 3.
Comparisons of candidate models for Pseudogymnoascus destructans in environmental substrates from bat hibernacula.
| Modelsa | k | AICc | ΔAICc | w |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presence-absence | ||||
| Spatial + Temporal + Climate | 10 | 1109.54 | 0 | 0.92 |
| Spatial + Temporal | 8 | 1114.44 | 4.9 | 0.08 |
| Climate | 4 | 1358.75 | 249.22 | 0 |
| Intercept | 2 | 1378.93 | 269.39 | 0 |
| Abundance | ||||
| Spatial + Temporal + Climate | 13 | 1062.74 | 0 | 0.77 |
| Spatial + Temporal | 11 | 1065.16 | 2.42 | 0.23 |
| Climate | 7 | 1075.14 | 12.4 | 0 |
| Intercept | 5 | 1075.26 | 12.52 | 0 |
a
Models are ranked based on corrected Akaike’s Information Criteria (AICc) and relative fits are shown with Akaike weights (w) which sum to 1. K is number of parameters. All presence-absence models included a random intercept of time since first detection of WNS in bats at the site. All abundance models included a random slope by sample type and a random intercept by site. See Table 2 for model descriptions.