<p>Soria-Díaz et al. Online Appendix for “Top-down and bottom-up control on cougar and its prey in a central Mexican Natural Reserve.”. European Journal of Wildlife Research. Corresponding autor: [email protected] Appendix A Individual candidate models describing the changes in the SNNR food web in bi-annual surveys from January 2004 to December 2009. Parameters are included in the model as ln(RAIi) for each species (see eqn. 2 in the main text).</p><p>Tables A1 Comparison of candidate models to describe per-capita changes in abundance (pca) for Cougar. </p><p>2 Table A1.1 Model 1 Results for Cougar pca: F4,4 = 21.58, p = 0.006, R = 0.96, AICc = 52.2, AICc = 23.2.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 2.77 0.986 2.81 0.0481 Cougar -3.05 0.377 -8.1 0.00126 White-tailed deer 0.268 0.436 0.615 0.572 Coati 1.37 0.569 2.41 0.0735 Armadillo 2.47 0.92 2.68 0.0551</p><p>2 Table A1.2 Model 2 Results for Cougar pca: F3,5 = 0.50, p = 0.70, R = 0.23, AICc = 53.9, AICc = 24.9.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept -2.08 2.92 -0.711 0.509 White-tailed deer 0.222 1.63 0.137 0.897 Coati -0.542 1.93 -0.28 0.79 Armadillo -2.06 2.73 -0.756 0.483</p><p>2 Table A1.3 Model 3 Results for Cougar pca: F3,5 = 32.71, p = 0.001, R = 0.95, AICc = 29.0, AICc = 0.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 3.06 0.815 3.75 0.0133 Cougar -3.05 0.353 -8.65 0.000342 Coati 1.67 0.282 5.91 0.00197 Armadillo 2.82 0.673 4.19 0.00853</p><p>2 Table A1.4 Model 4 Results for Cougar pca: F2,6 = 0.88, p = 0.46, R = 0.23, AICc = 42.0, AICc = 13. </p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept -1.84 2.14 -0.86 0.423 Coati -0.294 0.612 -0.48 0.648 Armadillo -1.77 1.51 -1.17 0.286</p><p>Soria-Díaz et al. Online Appendix for “Top-down and bottom-up control on cougar and its prey in a central Mexican Natural Reserve.”</p><p>Tables A2 Comparison of candidate models to describe per-capita changes in abundance (pca) for White-tailed deer. </p><p>2 Table A2.1 Model 1 Results for White-tailed deer pca: F1,9 = 10.69, p = 0.01, R = 0.53, AICc = 28.4, AICc = 0.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.555 0.239 2.33 0.0451 Cougar -0.991 0.303 -3.27 0.010</p><p>2 Table A2.2. Model 2 Results for White-tailed deer pca: F1,9 = 2.05, p = 0.19, R = 0.19, AICc = 34.8, AICc = 6.4.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.306 0.297 1.030 0.330 White-tailed deer -0.430 0.300 -1.433 0.186</p><p>2 Table A2.3. Model 3 Results for White-tailed deer pca: F3,5 = 32.71, p = 0.001, R = 0.95, AICc = 33.0, AICc = 5.6.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.546 0.246 2.219 0.057 Cougar -1.230 0.460 -2.674 0.028 White-tailed deer 0.242 0.342 0.708 0.499</p><p>2 Table A2.4. Model 4 Results for White-tailed deer pca: F3,5 = 4.91, p = 0.041, R = 0.55, AICc = 33.4, AICc = 5.0.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.073 1.290 0.057 0.956 Cougar -1.026 0.332 -3.092 0.015 NDVI 0.780 2.049 0.381 0.713</p><p>2 Table A2.5. Model 5 Results for White-tailed deer pca: F2,8 = 1.01, p = 0.406, R = 0.20, AICc = 39.8, AICc = 11.4.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.983 1.707 0.058 0.581 White-tailed deer -1.026 0.332 -3.092 0.015 NDVI 0.780 2.049 0.381 0.713</p><p>2 Table A2.6. Model 5 Results for White-tailed deer pca: F1,9 = 0.13, p = 0.724, R = 0.01, AICc = 36.9, AICc = 8.5.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.729 1.777 0.410 0.691 NDVI -1.002 2.746 -0.365 0.724</p><p>2 Soria-Díaz et al. Online Appendix for “Top-down and bottom-up control on cougar and its prey in a central Mexican Natural Reserve.”</p><p>Tables A3: Comparison of candidate models to describe per-capita changes in abundance (pca) for Coati. </p><p>2 Table A3.1 Model 1 Results for Coati pca: F1,9 = 0.43, p = 0.53, R = 0.05, AICc = 26.2, AICc = 2.4.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.206 0.215 0.958 0.363 Cougar -0.179 0.273 -0.655 0.529</p><p>2 Table A3.2 Model 2 Results for Coati pca: F1,9 = 2.72, p = 0.13, R = 0.23, AICc = 23.8, AICc = 0.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.554 0.304 1.819 0.102 Coati -0.421 0.256 -1.648 0.134</p><p>2 Table A3.3 Model 3 Results for Coati pca: F2,8 = 1.21, p = 0.35, R = 0.23, AICc = 29.0, AICc = 5.2.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.553 0.323 1.715 0.125 Cougar -0.004 0.291 0.015 0.988 Coati -0.423 0.304 -1.393 0.201</p><p>2 Table A3.4 Model 4 Results for Coati pca: F2,8 = 1.01, p = 0.41, R = 0.20, AICc = 29.4, AICc = 5.6.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 1.524 1.073 1.421 0.193 Cougar -0.082 0.276 -0.295 0.775 NDVI -2.133 1.704 -1.253 0.246</p><p>2 Table A3.5 Model 5 Results for Coati pca: F2,8 = 2.27, p = 0.17, R = 0.36, AICc = 27.0, AICc = 3.2.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 1.709 0.950 1.798 0.110 Coati -0.365 0.251 -1.455 0.184 NDVI -1.898 1.485 -1.279 0.237</p><p>2 Table A3.6 Model 6 Results for Coati pca: F1,9 = 2.16, p = 0.176, R = 0.19, AICc = 24.3, AICc = 0.5.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 1.576 1.003 1.571 0.151 NDVI -2.275 1.550 -1.468 0.176</p><p>2 Soria-Díaz et al. Online Appendix for “Top-down and bottom-up control on cougar and its prey in a central Mexican Natural Reserve.”</p><p>Tables A4 Comparison of candidate models to describe per-capita changes in abundance (pca) for Armadillo. </p><p>2 Table A4.1 Model 1 Results for Armadillo pca: F1,7 = 12.08, p = 0.01, R = 0.63, AICc = 8.7, AICc = 0.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.203 0.097 2.092 0.075 Cougar -0.437 0.126 -3.476 0.010</p><p>2 Table A4.2 Model 2 Results for Armadillo pca: F1,9 = 9.46, p = 0.02, R = 0.57, AICc = 10.0, AICc = 1.3.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept -1.347 0.453 -2.975 0.021 Armadillo -1.078 0.351 -3.075 0.018</p><p>2 Table A4.3 Model 3 Results for Armadillo pca: F2,6 = 8.19, p = 0.02, R = 0.73, AICc = 13.1, AICc = 4.4.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept -0.609 0.553 -1.101 0.313 Cougar -0.288 0.153 -1.877 0.110 Armadillo -0.591 0.397 -1.488 0.187</p><p>2 Table A4.4 Model 4 Results for Armadillo pca: F2,6 = 5.18, p = 0.49, R = 0.63, AICc = 15.9, AICc = 7.2.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 0.206 0.642 0.321 0.759 Cougar -0.437 0.161 -2.704 0.035 NDVI -0.006 1.051 -0.005 0.996</p><p>2 Table A4.5 Model 5 Results for Armadillo pca: F2,6 = 4.42, p = 0.06, R = 0.60, AICc = 16.8, AICc = 8.1.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept -0.878 0.971 -0.905 0.401 Armadillo -0.990 0.402 -2.464 0.049 NDVI -0.560 1.011 -0.554 0.599</p><p>2 Table A4.6 Model 6 Results for Armadillo pca: F1,7 = 1.6, p = 0.25, R = 0.19, AICc = 15.8, AICc = 7.1.</p><p>Parameter Std. Estimate Error t value Pr(>|t|) Intercept 1.003 0.787 1.274 0.243 NDVI -1. 542 1.219 -1.265 0.246</p><p>2 </p>