The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were Weeks hunted and you may involved Hunters showed a decreasing trend in the number of days hunted over time (r = -0.63, P = 0.0020, Fig 1), but an increasing trend in the number of bobcats chased per day (r = 0.77, P Trappers exhibited substantial annual variation in the number of days trapped over time, but without a clear trend (r = -0.15, P = 0.52). Trappers who harvested a bobcat used more trap sets than trappers who did not ( SE, SE; ? = 0.17, P Bobcats put out New suggest level of bobcats put out per year by the candidates are 0.forty-five (variety = 0.22–0.72) (Table 1) and you will presented zero clear pattern throughout the years (roentgen = -0.10, P = 0.76). As opposed to all of our hypothesis, there’s no difference between the number of bobcats released between effective and you may unsuccessful hunters (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). New annual quantity of bobcats put-out by candidates wasn’t correlated that have bobcat variety (roentgen = -0.fourteen, P = 0.65). The mean number of bobcats released annually by trappers was 0.21 (range = 0.10–0.52) (Table 1) but was not correlated with year (r = 0.49, P = 0.11). Trappers who harvested a bobcat released more bobcats ( SE) than trappers who did not harvest a bobcat ( SE) (? = 2.04, P Per-unit-effort metrics and you will wealth The mean CPUE was 0.19 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.05–0.42) and 2.10 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 0.50–8.07) (Table 1). The mean ACPUE was 0.32 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.16–0.54) and 3.64 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 1.49–8.61) (Table 1). The coefficient of variation for CPUE and ACPUE was greater for trappers than for hunters (trapper CPUE = 96%, hunter CPUE = 65%, trapper ACPUE = 68%, hunter ACPUE = 36%). All four metrics increased over time (Fig 2) although the strength of the relationship with year varied (hunter CPUE:, r = 0.92, P Hunter and trapper CPUE around the all the years was not correlated that have bobcat wealth (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you can roentgen = 0.thirty-two, P = 0.sixteen, respectively). However, from inside the two-time attacks i tested (1993–2002 and you may 2003–2014), brand new correlations anywhere between huntsman and trapper CPUE and you will bobcat variety were all synchronised (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) except for hunter CPUE while in the 1993–2002 which in fact had a marginal relationships (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.11, Dining table 2). Brand new matchmaking between CPUE and you may wealth was positive through the 1993–2002 although the 95% CI to have ? had been broad and you may overlapped 1.0 both for hunter and you may trapper CPUE (Fig step 3). 0 appearing CPUE declined faster at straight down abundances (Fig 3). Huntsman CPUE met with the strongest connection with bobcat wealth (Roentgen dos = 0.73, Table 2). Good traces are projected fits from linear regression models when you are dashed outlines is actually projected fits from reduced biggest axis regression of record out-of CPUE/ACPUE from the diary out-of abundance. The fresh dependent and you may independent variables have been rescaled because of the separating because of the maximum worth.

The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were < -1

Weeks hunted and you may involved

Hunters showed a decreasing trend in the number of days hunted over time (r = -0.63, P = 0.0020, Fig 1), but an increasing trend in the number of bobcats chased per day (r = 0.77, P < 0.0001, Fig 1). Contrary to our hypothesis, the number of days hunted did not differ between successful and unsuccessful hunters ( SE; SE; ? = 0.04, P = 0.13).

Trappers exhibited substantial annual variation in the number of days trapped over time, but without a clear trend (r = -0.15, P = 0.52). Trappers who harvested a bobcat used more trap sets than trappers who did not ( SE, SE; ? = 0.17, P < 0.01). The mean number of trap-days also showed an increasing trend (r = 0.52, P = 0.01, Fig 1). Trappers who harvested a bobcat had more trap-days ( SE) than trappers who did not harvest a bobcat ( SE) (? = 0.12, P = 0.04).

Bobcats put out

New suggest level of bobcats put out per year by the candidates are 0.forty-five (variety = 0.22–0.72) (Table 1) and you will presented zero clear pattern throughout the years (roentgen = -0.10, P = 0.76). As opposed to all of our hypothesis, there’s no difference between the number of bobcats released between effective and you may unsuccessful hunters (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). New annual quantity of bobcats put-out by candidates wasn’t correlated that have bobcat variety (roentgen = -0.fourteen, P = 0.65).

The mean number of bobcats released annually by trappers was 0.21 (range = 0.10–0.52) (Table 1) but was not correlated with year (r = 0.49, P = 0.11). Trappers who harvested a bobcat released more bobcats ( SE) than trappers who did not harvest a bobcat ( SE) (? = 2.04, P < 0.0001). The annual number of bobcats released by trappers was not correlated with bobcat abundance (r = -0.45, P = 0.15).

Per-unit-effort metrics and you will wealth

The mean CPUE was 0.19 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.05–0.42) and 2.10 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 0.50–8.07) (Table 1). The mean ACPUE was 0.32 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.16–0.54) and 3.64 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 1.49–8.61) (Table 1). The coefficient of variation for CPUE and ACPUE was greater for trappers than for hunters (trapper CPUE = 96%, hunter CPUE = 65%, trapper ACPUE = 68%, hunter ACPUE = 36%). All four metrics increased over time (Fig 2) although the strength of the relationship with year varied (hunter CPUE:, r = 0.92, P < 0.01; trapper CPUE: r = 0.73, P = < 0.01; hunter ACPUE: r = 0.82, P = < 0.01; trapper ACPUE: r = 0.66, P = 0.02).

Hunter and trapper CPUE around the all the years was not correlated that have bobcat wealth (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you can roentgen = 0.thirty-two, P = 0.sixteen, respectively). However, from inside the two-time attacks i tested (1993–2002 and you may 2003–2014), brand new correlations anywhere between huntsman and trapper CPUE and you will bobcat variety were all synchronised (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) except for hunter CPUE while in the 1993–2002 which in fact had a marginal relationships (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.11, Dining table 2). Brand new matchmaking between CPUE and you may wealth was positive through the 1993–2002 although the 95% CI to have ? had been broad and you may overlapped 1.0 both for hunter and you may trapper CPUE (Fig step 3). 0 appearing CPUE declined faster at straight down abundances (Fig 3). Huntsman CPUE met with the strongest connection with bobcat wealth (Roentgen dos = 0.73, Table 2).

Good traces are projected fits from linear regression models when you are dashed outlines is actually projected fits from reduced biggest axis regression of record out-of CPUE/ACPUE from the diary out-of abundance. The fresh dependent and you may independent variables have been rescaled because of the separating because of the maximum worth.

Leave a Comment

อีเมลของคุณจะไม่แสดงให้คนอื่นเห็น ช่องข้อมูลจำเป็นถูกทำเครื่องหมาย *