Table 1.
Candidate model sets to test the relative effect of interspecific interactions on predator occurrences
| Species | Hypothesis—Predator occurrence best explained by | Predictor variables |
|---|---|---|
| Mesocarnivore 1 | Habitat | Significant forest cover variables from step 1 |
| Anthropogenic features | Linear density (LD) + Habitat | |
| Seasonality | Snow + Habitat | |
| Apex predator | Wolf + Habitat | |
| Wolf + Snow + Habitat | ||
| Wolf × Snow + Habitat | ||
| Wolf + LD + Habitat | ||
| Wolf × LD + Habitat | ||
| Intraguild competition | Mesocarnivore2 + Habitat | |
| Mesocarnivore2 + Snow + Habitat | ||
| Mesocarnivore2 × Snow + Habitat | ||
| Mesocarnivore2 + LD + Habitat | ||
| Mesocarnivore2 × LD + Habitat | ||
| Predation opportunities | Prey + Habitat | |
| Prey + Snow + Habitat | ||
| Prey × Snow + Habitat | ||
| Prey + LD + Habitat | ||
| Prey × LD + Habitat | ||
| Black bear | Habitat | Significant forest cover variables from step 1 |
| Anthropogenic features | LD + Habitat | |
| Apex predator | Wolf + Habitat | |
| Wolf + LD + Habitat | ||
| Wolf × LD + Habitat | ||
| Predation opportunities | Prey + Habitat | |
| Prey + LD + Habitat | ||
| Prey × LD + Habitat |
Models were negative binomial GLMs at the spatial‐only scale, and binomial GLMMs at the two spatiotemporal scales. Each model set corresponds to a hypothesized interspecific interaction. We tested models with co‐occurring species as a predictor variable against three base models describing environmental effects. Candidate model sets for mesocarnivores (coyote and lynx) are identical, with mesocarnivore 1 describing the responding predator and mesocarnivore 2 describing the co‐occurring intraguild competitor (e.g., when mesocarnivore 1 is coyote, mesocarnivore 2 is lynx and vice versa). At the spatial‐only scale of analysis, we excluded season models for all species because the response variable aggregated detections across the entire survey period.