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 Over 50 dating 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).
The fresh imply quantity of bobcats released a year because of the hunters are 0.forty five (variety = 0.22–0.72) (Dining table step one) and you can presented no clear pattern over the years (r = -0.ten, P = 0.76). In comparison to our very own theory, there can be no difference in what number of bobcats put-out anywhere between winning and you can unsuccessful seekers (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). The brand new annual level of bobcats create by seekers was not correlated having bobcat variety (r = -0.14, 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).
Huntsman and you will trapper CPUE round the the ages was not coordinated which have bobcat wealth (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and roentgen = 0.thirty-two, P = 0.sixteen, respectively). But inside two time episodes i checked-out (1993–2002 and you will 2003–2014), brand new correlations ranging from huntsman and you can trapper CPUE and bobcat wealth was indeed every correlated (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) except for hunter CPUE through the 1993–2002 which had a marginal matchmaking (r = 0.54, P = 0.11, Table dos). The new matchmaking ranging from CPUE and you will wealth was self-confident during 1993–2002 as the 95% CI to own ? was indeed wide and overlapped 1.0 for both huntsman and you will trapper CPUE (Fig 3). 0 appearing CPUE declined quicker in the straight down abundances (Fig 3). Huntsman CPUE met with the most effective relationship with bobcat wealth (Roentgen dos = 0.73, Desk 2).
Solid contours is actually projected fits out of linear regression habits if you are dashed outlines are projected suits of smaller significant axis regression of log away from CPUE/ACPUE contrary to the diary of variety. The centered and you can separate details was indeed rescaled of the splitting because of the the most really worth.