Incorporating within- and between-patch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood-rearing greater sage-grouse

Ecological Processes

Table 4 Ranking of candidate models for the non-behaviorally adjusted model of greater sage-grouse

Model	K	AIC _c	Δ	w
Vegetation and water resources	13	28,266.89	0.00	0.88
Foraging/perceived risk	13	28,270.86	3.97	0.12
Global	22	28,279.22	12.33	0.00
Agriculture	6	28,362.19	95.31	0.00
Vegetation	12	28,384.96	118.07	0.00
Vegetation and terrain/topography	16	28,391.44	124.55	0.00
Local concealment	8	28,446.15	179.26	0.00
Movement facilitation	6	28,480.97	214.08	0.00
Sagebrush and non-energy-related anthropogenic features	4	28,483.76	216.88	0.00
Foraging	6	28,484.18	217.29	0.00
Water resources	4	28,484.72	217.83	0.00
Terrain/topography and foraging	10	28,488.96	222.07	0.00
Thermal environment	7	28,593.09	326.20	0.00
Sagebrush and energy-related anthropogenic features	5	28,656.49	389.60	0.00
Sagebrush	2	28,659.07	392.18	0.00
Terrain/topography	6	28,662.48	395.59	0.00
Null	0	28,928.05	661.17	0.00

List of candidate models (i.e., competing hypotheses) for the non-behaviorally adjusted model of resource selection for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in south-central Wyoming, USA, from 2009 to 2012. Models are ranked in order of most plausible, including number of parameters (K), Akiake information scores corrected for small sample size (AIC_c), difference in AIC_c scores (∆), and AIC_c weights (w).