Estimating density

Estimated density was 0.12 gliders ha-1 (95% C.I. 0.07, 0.20) using the best model for the full dataset (g0 ~ bait , Table 1). When subset to data only using fish-bait, model selection preference suggested that an animal and site behavioural response (g0 ~ bk ) fit best (Table 2). Density estimates were equivalent using this model parametrization (D = 0.12 ha-1 [95% C.I. 0.07 – 0.19]) but indicates that individuals that had been caught before with fish bait at a given location were more likely to be detected there again.
Table 2. Model selection (based on AICc) to explore behaviour, using data subset to the fish-baited survey only.
Model nPar AICc dAICc Effect
g0~bk 4 1922.32 0 Animal x site response (site specific step-change)
g0~Bk 4 1990.70 68.38 Animal x site response (site specific transient response)
g0~k 4 2018.66 96.35 Site response
g0~B 4 2037.32 114.99 Transient response
g0~1 3 2062.06 139.75 Null model
g0~b 4 2064.14 141.82 Learned response
Observations were too sparse to accurately estimate home range and activity centres in the honey-baited survey. In the fish-baited survey, there was sufficient data to fit models for most individuals (14/17) but only a third of those (n= 5) had the ideal number of detections (~20 or more across multiple locations) to reliably estimate home range centres (Fig. 3). Average maximum movement was estimated as 176m and the mean home range size was estimated as 1.3ha. Maximum linear movement observed in a single individual was 552m and maximum distance travelled between cameras in one night was 296m.