Weeks hunted and 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).
This new imply amount of bobcats put out per year by the candidates is 0.forty-five (range = 0.22–0.72) (Desk step 1) and you will displayed zero clear trend over the years (roentgen = -0.ten, P = 0.76). Contrary to our very own theory, there was zero difference between the number of bobcats put out anywhere between winning and you can unproductive candidates (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). Brand new annual amount of bobcats put-out of the candidates was not coordinated having 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-energy metrics and you will variety
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 you may trapper CPUE around the every age was not correlated with bobcat variety (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you can roentgen = 0.thirty-two, P = 0.sixteen, respectively). But for the two-time attacks i examined (1993–2002 and 2003–2014), the latest correlations between hunter and you will trapper CPUE and bobcat wealth was in fact all the correlated (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) with the exception of hunter CPUE throughout the 1993–2002 which had a limited relationships (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.eleven, Table 2). The newest relationship between CPUE and you will variety was indeed confident during the 1993–2002 although the 95% CI for ? have been broad and you will overlapped 1.0 both for huntsman and you can trapper CPUE (Fig step 3). 0 demonstrating CPUE refuted quicker within straight down abundances (Fig 3). Hunter CPUE had the strongest reference to bobcat wealth (R 2 = 0.73, Table dos).
Solid lines try projected suits of linear regression designs whenever you are dashed outlines was estimated fits out-of quicker big axis regression of the log away from CPUE/ACPUE contrary to the log away from wealth. The fresh situated and you may independent variables were rescaled by breaking up from the real sugar daddies Miami Florida the most worth.