Interactions between carnivore species: limited spatiotemporal partitioning between apex predator and smaller carnivores in a Mediterranean protected area

Table 2 Factors influencing spatial variation of carnivore detection rates

Analysis	Species	Variable	B	S.E	0.95 CIs
Analysis	Species	Variable	B	S.E	−	+
Spatial interactions	Red fox	Intercept	− 0.994	0.252	− 1.488	− 0.500
		Wolf	0.082	0.043	− 0.002	0.167
		Badger	0.239	0.047	0.146	0.332
		Study year [Second]	− 0.251	0.152	− 0.548	0.046
		Study year [Third]	− 0.342	0.154	− 0.644	− 0.040
		Season [Summer]	0.438	0.108	0.226	0.650
		Season [Autumn]	0.235	0.109	0.022	0.448
		Season [Winter]	0.384	0.111	0.167	0.600
	Badger	Intercept	− 3.611	0.184	− 3.971	− 3.250
		Red fox	0.424	0.057	0.312	0.536
		Humans	− 0.240	0.107	− 0.450	− 0.030
		Season [Summer]	0.115	0.182	− 0.241	0.471
		Season [Autumn]	0.034	0.177	− 0.313	0.380
		Season [Winter]	0.552	0.174	0.212	0.892
		Shrub cover	0.347	0.120	0.112	0.583
	Martes spp.	Intercept	− 2.937	0.431	− 3.782	− 2.092
		Red fox	0.261	0.068	0.129	0.394
		Humans	− 0.132	0.104	− 0.336	0.071
		Season [Summer]	− 0.175	0.193	− 0.554	0.204
		Season [Autumn]	− 0.615	0.197	− 1.000	− 0.229
		Season [Winter]	− 0.399	0.195	− 0.781	− 0.016
		Study year [Second]	− 0.766	0.288	− 1.331	− 0.201
		Study year [Third]	− 0.458	0.299	− 1.043	0.128
		Canopy cover	0.371	0.165	0.049	0.694
Spatiotemporal interactions	Wolf- Red fox	Intercept	1.915	0.086	1.746	2.083
	Wolf- Red fox	Wolf-Fox vs. Fox-Wolf	− 0.053	0.079	− 0.209	0.102
	Wolf- Badger	Intercept	2.179	0.187	1.813	2.546
	Wolf- Badger	Wolf-Badger vs. Badger-Wolf	0.092	0.205	− 0.310	0.494
	Wolf- Martes spp.	Intercept	2.249	0.756	0.766	3.731
	Wolf- Martes spp.	Wolf-Martes vs. Martes-Wolf	− 0.102	0.487	− 1.057	0.853

Variables influencing spatial variation of detection rates of red fox, badger and Martes spp., as well as spatiotemporal patterns of each mesocarnivore species in relation to the wolf. Spatial variation of detection rates was estimated through Generalised Linear Mixed Models with negative binomial errors. Variables included in the best models are shown. Estimated coefficients and their standard error as well as 0.95 confidence intervals are shown. Spatiotemporal patterns were estimated through Linear mixed models with gaussian errors

ISSN: 1742-9994