| Literature DB >> 26375958 |
Bill Buffum, Thomas J McGreevy, Amy E Gottfried, Mary E Sullivan, Thomas P Husband.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26375958 PMCID: PMC4574399 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 2Logistic regression of the probability of New England cottontail (NEC) presence versus eastern cottontail presence based on average percent tree canopy cover within 75 m of detection location (Wald = 6.2230, p < 0.05).
Notes: The frequencies of the two species in each canopy classes are provided in parentheses. New England cottontail: 0(6); 0.01–0.1 (0); 0.11–0.2 (4); 0.21–0.3 (13); 0.31–0.4 (19); 0.41–0.5 (38); 0.51-.06 (44); 0.61–0.7 (32); 0.71–0.8 (12); 0.81–1.0 (0). Eastern cottontail: 0 (13); 0.01–0.1 (1); 0.11–0.2 (2); 0.21–0.3 (17); 0.31–0.4 (35); 0.41–0.5 (29); 0.51-.06 (40); 0.61–0.7 (19); 0.71–0.8 (12); 0.81–1.0 (0).