TABLE 1.

A comparison of small‐mammal community and habitat characteristics of high‐ and low‐wolf‐occupancy sites in Wisconsin (USA, 2014–2015)

Site characteristic	High‐wolf occupancy a	Low‐wolf occupancy a	df	t	p
Small‐mammal community
Captures b , 2014	9.76 ± 2.06	24.04 ± 4.98	13.28	−2.65	.02
Captures b , 2015	2.70 ± 1.01	4.48 ± 2.06	14.47	−0.78	.45
Individuals b , 2014	8.51 ± 1.85	19.55 ± 4.18	13.74	−2.42	.03
Individuals b , 2015	1.98 ± 0.53	2.84 ± 1.31	13.18	−0.61	.55
Richness, 2014	2.10 ± 0.35	3.09 ± 0.31	19	−2.12	.05
Richness, 2015	1.30 ± 0.30	1.27 ± 0.33	19	0.06	.95
P. leucopus b , 2014	3.50 ± 0.95	5.57 ± 1.76	19	−1.01	.33
P. leucopus b , 2015	0.35 ± 0.18	0.32 ± 0.16	19	0.13	.90
P. maniculatus b , 2014	1.77 ± 0.98	1.98 ± 0.89	19	−0.15	.88
P. maniculatus b , 2015	0.35 ± 0.18	0.42 ± 0.18	19	−0.27	.79
M. gapperi b , 2014	1.65 ± 0.61	8.78 ± 2.89	10.89	−2.41	.03
M. gapperi b , 2015	0.69 ± 0.26	0.56 ± 0.39	19	0.28	.78
Habitat
Canopy cover (%)	97.57 ± 0.71	98.03 ± 0.67	19	−0.48	.64
Total BA (cm2)	11,640.8 ± 875.2	14,452.1 ± 1,232.9	19	−1.83	.08
Shrub cover (%)	41.78 ± 7.70	51.71 ± 11.74	19	−0.69	.50
A. saccharum BA (cm2)	4,317.3 ± 1,171.3	6,120.6 ± 1649.7	19	−0.87	.39
A. rubrum BA (cm2)	1,198.4 ± 409.2	1,296.1 ± 528.2	19	−0.14	.89
B. alleghaniensis BA (cm2)	349.3 ± 229.0	287.1 ± 132.8	19	0.24	.81
T. canadensis BA (cm2)	525.7 ± 433.9	574.8 ± 574.8	19	−0.07	.95
Understory cover (%)	32.31 ± 5.13	37.12 ± 7.01	19	−0.54	.59
Litter depth (cm)	2.45 ± 0.19	2.45 ± 0.25	19	−0.07	.95
Canopy transmittance: 0.1 m (%)	5.05 ± 0.80	6.19 ± 1.40	19	−0.69	.50
Canopy transmittance: 1.5 m (%)	7.28 ± 2.49	7.05 ± 1.68	19	0.08	.94
Coarse woody debris (presence)	0.60 ± 0.16	0.64 ± 0.15	19	−0.16	.87

We used wolf‐occupancy classifications from the same year in which each measurement was taken as wolf occupancy classification changed for two sites between the 2years of study.

^aValues for high‐ and low‐wolf occupancy are means ± SE.

^bPer 100 units of trap effort (Nelson & Clark, 1973).