Skip to main content
. 2018 Sep 5;8(20):10075–10093. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4480

Table 2.

Top mixed‐effects logistic regression models explaining variation in use of refuge types. All models carried a random effect of snake ID. Sign (+/−) indicate the direction of the term's effect; “Y” and “M” indicate “yes” and “male” for MEAL and SEX categorical predictors, respectively. (NS) = not significant; (.) = p ≤ 0.10; (*) = p ≤ 0.05; (**) = p ≤ 0.01; (***) = p ≤ 0.001. Blank cells indicate that the term was not included in the top model. ∆ AICc is the difference in AICc between the top models with and without the MEAL term. Σw MEAL is the sum of model weights of all models carrying the MEAL term. ANOVA reflects the significance of the difference between the top models with and without the MEAL term compared by a likelihood ratio test

Refuge MEAL SEX CI SVL SVL2 ∆ AICc Σw MEAL ANOVA
Dead woody vegetation +(**)
Flagellaria (vines) M‐(.) −(***) +(NS) − (*)
Tree (various broadleaf) Y+(*) +(NS) 1.45 0.70 (.)
Pandanus (screw palm) Y+(*) +(.) − (NS) +(*) 3.41 0.78 (*)
Ground Y‐(***) M+(*) +(*) +(NS) 16.31 1.00 (***)