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 a-year because of the seekers was 0.forty five (variety = 0.22–0.72) (Dining table 1) and you will displayed no obvious development throughout the years (r = -0.10, P = 0.76). Contrary to the theory, there was no difference in exactly how many bobcats put-out between winning and you may unsuccessful candidates (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). The annual amount of bobcats put out by hunters was not coordinated with bobcat wealth (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).
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 all over all years wasn’t synchronised that have bobcat abundance (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you will r = 0.thirty two, P = 0.16, respectively). However, during the two-time episodes we examined (1993–2002 and you may 2003–2014), the brand new correlations between hunter and you will trapper CPUE and you will bobcat wealth was indeed all the correlated (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) with the exception of hunter CPUE throughout the 1993–2002 which in fact had a marginal dating (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.eleven, Desk dos). The fresh new dating ranging from CPUE and abundance was indeed positive during 1993–2002 whilst 95% CI getting ? were wider and you can overlapped step one.0 for hunter and trapper CPUE (Fig 3). 0 proving CPUE declined faster during the down abundances (Fig step three). Hunter CPUE met with the Jewish Sites dating app most powerful reference to bobcat variety (R 2 = 0.73, Desk 2).
Strong lines is actually projected fits out-of linear regression models if you’re dashed traces try projected fits off reduced significant axis regression of the journal from CPUE/ACPUE against the journal out of wealth. Brand new created and you may separate variables was basically rescaled by the dividing by the the most worthy of.