We used standardized regression coefficients to assess the effect size of the predictor variables on the three response variables. Continuous predictor variables were standardized and scaled by dividing their mean by two standard deviations (Gelman, 2008 ). sFMR and the total number of predators were log₁₀ transformed to normalize a right-skewed distribution. Multicollinearity of continuous predictor variables was not an issue because the variance inflation factor (VIF) of all continuous predictor variables remained below 1 Fitness-Dating-Bewertungen.5 for all models. We tested the linearity between the predictors and the response variables using a generalized additive mixed model (package gamm4 version 0.2-6). The predictors had an effective degree of freedom (edf) close to 1 and were therefore linearly related to the response variables. Model selection was performed by using the “drop1” protocol of Zuur et al. ( 2009 ) and the Akaike information criteria (AIC). The fit of the models was assessed using plots of model residuals.

step three Performance

For the metabolic rate models on body condition, the final model included sFMR, age class, and days since the start of the data collection, whereas for predator number models, the final model only included number of predators and age class (Table 1). The sum of the field metabolic rate of predators (sFMR) was negatively related to the body condition index of hares (Marginal R 2 = .61) (Table 1). Adult hares had a 21.8% higher body condition index than subadult (p < .001), whereas the body condition index of hares increased during the research period from autumn–winter) (p = .017). For the number of predators' models, while age class was correlated to body condition, the number of predators was not (Table 1).

For metabolic models and you will predator amount patterns to the weight of adrenal gland, the very last model incorporated brand new predator index and you will hare sex (Dining table dos)

• a models are derived from size of 66 hares inside the thirteen hunting leases collected during a period of 34 months.
• b Body position directory (muscles bulk/hindfoot duration; Murray, 2002 ), sFMR = amount of industry metabolic process, Ages = subadult or mature, Day = weeks because the beginning of the investigation range, tNP = final number away from predators. Another details have been decrease from last model 1: percentage of hares try and intercourse away from hares; latest model 2: portion of hares shot, sex away from hares, and you will days just like the beginning of the studies collection.
• c Variables was standardized because of the dos SD (Gelman, 2008 ).
• d * = p < .05, *** = p < .001.
• age Subadult is actually reference group.

The whole field metabolic process off predators (sFMR) is actually certainly related to the extra weight of your adrenals (Limited R 2 = .14) (Dining table dos). The full number of predators, not, try unrelated toward lbs of hare adrenal glands (Dining table 2). While doing so, adrenal glands of women was indeed 0.04 ± 0.017 g ( ± SE) hefty than that men throughout the design that have sFMR, however in the model to the final number out of predators. In both cases, the new part of hares attempt, ages category, and you may days given that study were obtained is actually not related into lbs of adrenals.

For both metabolic designs and you can predator count models on the weight of the adrenal gland, the past model included the fresh predator directory and you may hare sex (Desk 2)

• a design are based on size of hares when you look at the 13 browse rentals amassed over a period of 34 weeks.
• b sFMR = amount of industry metabolic process, Sex = male or female, tNP = total number regarding predators. The second variables was indeed fell off final Models step 1 and 2: portion of hares’ sample, decades classification, and you may months given that start of data range.