SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher's web-site.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
jwmg578-sm-SuppApp-S1.doc245K

Appendix S1. Supplemental methods.

Figure S1. Map of study area in Minnesota, USA.

Table S1. Criteria applied in a sequential manner during 2009 to distinguish primary drumming structures from secondary drumming structures on the Red Lake Wildlife Management Area, Roosevelt, MN.

Tables S2. Sequential criteria used in 2010 to distinguish primary drumming structures from secondary drumming structures on the Red Lake Wildlife Management Area, Roosevelt, MN. The essential difference between the two sets of criteria is the use of field notes by observers. Observers were trained to record specific information based on an assessment of 2009 criteria and field work.

jwmg578-sm-SuppApp-S2.doc75K

Appendix S2. Additional results.

Table S1. Model selection results for first model set (only those models with wi > 0.001) for assessing the relationships between landscape characteristics and male ruffed grouse density in northern Minnesota during 2009–2010.

Table S2. Model selection results for second model set (only those models with wi > 0.001) for assessing the relationships between landscape characteristics and male ruffed grouse density in northern Minnesota during 2009–2010.

Table S3. Model selection results for all models (models with wi > 0.001) for assessing the relationships between landscape characteristics and male ruffed grouse density in northern Minnesota during 2009–2010.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.