اليوم: 30 مايو، 2023

The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were Days hunted and you may caught up 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 The new imply amount of bobcats put-out annually by the hunters is 0.45 (range = 0.22–0.72) (Table 1) and you will demonstrated zero clear pattern over the years (r = -0.10, P = 0.76). Contrary to our very own theory, there’s no difference between how many bobcats released ranging from winning and you may unsuccessful seekers (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). This new yearly number of bobcats put-out from the candidates wasn’t synchronised having bobcat variety (r = -0.14, 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-work metrics and 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 you can trapper CPUE all over all years wasn’t coordinated that have bobcat variety (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you may roentgen = 0.thirty two, P = 0.16, respectively). However, in the two time attacks we checked-out (1993–2002 and 2003–2014), the new correlations anywhere between huntsman and you will trapper CPUE and you will bobcat wealth was in fact all the synchronised (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) apart from huntsman CPUE while in the 1993–2002 which in fact had a marginal matchmaking (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.eleven, Dining table 2). The fresh new relationships ranging from CPUE and you may variety was indeed self-confident through the 1993–2002 even though the 95% CI getting ? had been wide and you will overlapped step 1.0 for hunter and you may trapper CPUE (Fig 3). 0 appearing CPUE declined faster from the all the way down abundances (Fig step 3). Hunter CPUE met with the most powerful experience of bobcat variety (R dos = 0.73, Table 2). Solid outlines try projected fits out of linear regression designs while you are dashed contours is projected fits regarding reduced significant axis regression of record out of CPUE/ACPUE resistant to the record out of variety. The new built and you may independent parameters was in fact rescaled from the splitting from the maximum worth.The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were Days hunted and you may caught up 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 The new imply amount of bobcats put-out annually by the hunters is 0.45 (range = 0.22–0.72) (Table 1) and you will demonstrated zero clear pattern over the years (r = -0.10, P = 0.76). Contrary to our very own theory, there’s no difference between how many bobcats released ranging from winning and you may unsuccessful seekers (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). This new yearly number of bobcats put-out from the candidates wasn’t synchronised having bobcat variety (r = -0.14, 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-work metrics and 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 you can trapper CPUE all over all years wasn’t coordinated that have bobcat variety (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you may roentgen = 0.thirty two, P = 0.16, respectively). However, in the two time attacks we checked-out (1993–2002 and 2003–2014), the new correlations anywhere between huntsman and you will trapper CPUE and you will bobcat wealth was in fact all the synchronised (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) apart from huntsman CPUE while in the 1993–2002 which in fact had a marginal matchmaking (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.eleven, Dining table 2). The fresh new relationships ranging from CPUE and you may variety was indeed self-confident through the 1993–2002 even though the 95% CI getting ? had been wide and you will overlapped step 1.0 for hunter and you may trapper CPUE (Fig 3). 0 appearing CPUE declined faster from the all the way down abundances (Fig step 3). Hunter CPUE met with the most powerful experience of bobcat variety (R dos = 0.73, Table 2). Solid outlines try projected fits out of linear regression designs while you are dashed contours is projected fits regarding reduced significant axis regression of record out of CPUE/ACPUE resistant to the record out of variety. The new built and you may independent parameters was in fact rescaled from the splitting from the maximum worth.

30/05/202330/05/2023 adminadmin 0 Comment

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

Read MoreRead More