Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Study region figure and analysis R script

This supplementary material includes two Appendices. In Appendix S1 we include a figure of the Georgia Basin of British Columbia, Canada, highlighting the study region. In Appendix S2 we provide the R script that we used for our analysis and simulations.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1033v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author Contributions

Richard Schuster conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Peter Arcese conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Permits or permission for the use of bird point count locations were obtained from Parks Canada (locations in National Park Reserves), private land owners (locations on private land), or did not require specific permission as they occurred on public right of ways (e.g., roadsides, regional parks). As private land owners did not want their information posted publically please contact the authors for contact details. The field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. This study did not require approval from an Animal Care and Use Committee because it was a non-invasive observational field study, and did not involve the capture and handling of wild animals.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Permits or permission for the use of bird point count locations were obtained from Parks Canada (locations in National Park Reserves), private land owners (locations on private land), or did not require specific permission as they occurred on public right of ways (e.g., roadsides, regional parks). As private land owners did not want their information posted publically please contact the authors for contact details. The field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. This study did not require approval from an Animal Care and Use Committee because it was a non-invasive observational field study, and did not involve the capture and handling of wild animals.

Funding

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada, W. and H. Hesse, the University of British Columbia, and an Endeavour Research Fellowship, Australia (RS) funded this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies