Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Wildl Manage. 2020 Oct 1;85(1):145–155. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21952

Table 2.

Competing models predicting female elk resource selection (RSF) during anthrax risk season in southwestern Montana, USA, 2014–2017. We report the model performance based on the difference of Akaike’s Information Criterion (ΔAIC) and Akaike weights (wi).

Numbera Model terms Variable numbers ΔAIC w i
Female elk RSF model with new combinations
1 Wolf Elevation Forest Aspect Stream Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 9 0 0.99
2 Wolf Elevation Aspect Stream Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 8 44 <0.001
3 Elevation Forest Aspect Stream Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 8 48 <0.001
4 Wolf Elevation Forest Aspect Stream Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 8 77 <0.001
5 Wolf Elevation Forest Aspect Stream Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 7 88 <0.001
6 Elevation Aspect Stream Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 7 94 <0.001
7 Wolf Elevation Forest Aspect Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 7 156 <0.001
8 Elevation Forest Aspect Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 7 207 <0.001
9 Wolf Elevation Forest Stream Slope Primary road Secondary road Tertiary road 8 294 <0.001
10 Wolf Elevation Forest Aspect Stream Slope Primary road Secondary road 8 361 <0.001
Female elk RSF model adopted from the best male elk RSF model
11 Elevation Forest Slope Secondary road Tertiary road 5 1,988 <0.001
a

Models 1–10 are the top 10 competing RSF models for female elk with new variable combinations that have relatively lower ΔAIC among all possible models. Model 11 is the best RSF for male elk reported in Morris et al. (2016a) and adapted to females.