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

Ecological Processes

Table 3 Ranking of candidate models for encamped and traveling modes of greater sage-grouse

Modes	K	AIC _c	Δ	w
Encamped
Model
Vegetation and water resources	13	33,663.78	0.00	0.95
Global	22	33,669.52	5.75	0.05
Foraging/perceived risk	13	33,769.51	105.73	0.00
Agriculture	6	33,835.05	171.28	0.00
Vegetation	12	33,895.72	231.95	0.00
Vegetation and terrain/topography	16	33,901.36	237.58	0.00
Local concealment	8	33,987.29	323.51	0.00
Sagebrush and non-energy-related anthropogenic features	4	33,988.50	324.72	0.00
Water resources	4	33,989.64	325.86	0.00
Foraging	6	33,990.89	327.11	0.00
Terrain/topography and foraging	10	33,994.76	330.99	0.00
Movement facilitation	6	34,050.88	387.10	0.00
Thermal environment	7	34,244.93	581.15	0.00
Sagebrush and energy-related anthropogenic features	5	34,321.29	657.52	0.00
Sagebrush	2	34,328.50	664.72	0.00
Terrain/topography	6	34,330.78	667.00	0.00
Null	0	34,671.67	1 007.90	0.00
Traveling
Model
Vegetation and water resources	13	17,540.62	0.00	0.97
Vegetation	12	17,547.84	7.22	0.03
Global	22	17,552.09	11.48	0.00
Vegetation and terrain/topography	16	17,554.23	13.61	0.00
Agriculture	6	17,557.83	17.21	0.00
Local concealment	8	17,562.81	22.20	0.00
Foraging/perceived risk	13	17,575.16	34.54	0.00
Movement facilitation	6	17,582.81	42.20	0.00
Foraging	6	17,605.54	64.93	0.00
Thermal environment	7	17,607.75	67.13	0.00
Sagebrush and non-energy-related anthropogenic features	4	17,609.30	68.69	0.00
Terrain/topography and foraging	10	17,610.45	69.83	0.00
Water resources	4	17,611.45	70.84	0.00
Sagebrush	2	17,624.95	84.34	0.00
Sagebrush and energy-related anthropogenic features	5	17,625.16	84.55	0.00
Terrain/topography	6	17,628.74	88.13	0.00
Null	0	17,733.84	193.23	0.00

List of candidate models (i.e., competing hypotheses) for encamped and traveling modes of 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).