Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 22;10(3):1613–1622. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6017

Table 2.

Coefficients for the best fitting versions of Model 1, which had a delta AICc < 3

  Estimate SE 95% CI z value p value
Model 1.2
Intercept (Habitat [Grassland], nest depth [Control]) −3.376 0.547 1.072 −6.173 <.001
Habitat (Woodland) 1.456 0.533 1.045 2.731 <.01
Nest depth (Surface) 1.612 0.346 0.678 4.695 <.001
Nest depth (Underground) 1.339 0.345 0.676 3.877 <.001
Model 1.1
Intercept (Habitat [Grassland], nest depth [Control]) −4.275 0.834 1.635 −5.127 <.001
Habitat (Woodland) 2.605 0.913 1.789 2.853 <.01
Nest depth (Surface) 2.710 0.762 1.494 3.555 <.001
Nest depth (Underground) 2.178 0.761 1.492 2.863 <.01
Habitat (Woodland): nest depth (Surface) −1.493 0.857 1.680 −1.743 .081
Habitat (Woodland): nest depth (Underground) −1.071 0.856 1.678 −1.251 .211

These models assessed the impact of habitat and nest depth on the proportion of artificial nests dug up. The untransformed estimates and standard errors are shown, along with the 95% confidence intervals, z value, and p value.