Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table 2 Rankings and relative support for local-habitat models that quantify pika occurrence

From: Microrefuges and the occurrence of thermal specialists: implications for wildlife persistence amidst changing temperatures

Model

K

AICc

Δ AICc

W j

E j

Cos(Aspect)

2

197.26

0.00

0.63

n/a

Slope + Elevation + Cos(Aspect)

4

199.29

2.03

0.23

2.74

Slope + Elevation + Cos(Aspect) + Forage

5

201.42

4.16

0.08

7.88

Slope

2

204.06

6.80

0.02

31.50

Global model

7

204.56

7.30

0.02

31.50

Elevation

2

205.98

8.71

0.01

63.00

Forage

2

206.23

8.97

0.01

63.00

Elevation (quadratic)

3

207.52

10.26

0.00

undefined

Elevation x Forage

4

209.12

11.85

0.00

undefined

  1. Model-selection parameters from competing models used to explain the effects of local-habitat parameters on American pika (Ochotona princeps) occurrence in western Wyoming, USA, June – October, 2010 – 2012; K, number of parameters in the model; AICc, Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small samples; Δ AICc, difference for model relative to the smallest AICc in the model set; W j, Akaike weight is the approximate probability in favor of the given model from the set of models considered; E j represents the weight of evidence in support of a model, compared to the top ranked model (W jTop/W ji)
Back to article page

Climate Change Responses

ISSN: 2053-7565