A protective nesting association with native species counteracts biotic resistance for the spread of an invasive parakeet from urban into rural habitats

Table 4 Factors affecting the probability of nest abandonment by parakeets between 2014 and 2015. Estimates and 95% confidence intervals (2.5 and 97.5%) were assessed after model averaging (ΔAIC ≤2). We considered that a given variable has no, weak or strong support when the 95% confidence interval strongly overlapped zero, barely overlapped zero (*), or did not overlap zero (**), respectively. Models were run separately for 2014 and 2015. k: number of parameters. AICc: Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes. ΔAICc: difference between the AICc of model i and that of the best-supported model (i.e. the model with the lowest AICc); w: Akaike weights. R²: measure of how well the model explains the data

Model	k	AICc	ΔAICc	weight	Variables	Estimate	2.5%	97.5%
abandon stork + conspecific density	3	31.88	0	0.37	abandon stork	3.83	0.82	6.85	**
abandon stork	2	32.95	1.07	0.22	conspecific density	−1.03	−2.31	0.25	*
abandon stork + substrate	3	33.01	1.13	0.21	substrate (pylon)	1.81	−0.81	4.43	*
abandon stork + predation risk	3	33.23	1.35	0.19	predation risk	−0.87	−2.20	0.47	*
predation risk + conspecific density	3	41.39	9.52	0.00
Null	1	41.42	9.55	0.00
conspecific density + substrate	3	42.19	10.32	0.00
Substrate	2	42.89	11.02	0.00
predation risk	2	42.95	11.08	0.00
conspecific density	2	42.96	11.08	0.00
predation risk + conspecific density + substrate	4	43.43	11.56	0.00
predation risk + substrate	3	45.27	13.39	0.00

ISSN: 1742-9994