Binturong ecology and conservation in pristine, fragmented and degraded tropical forests— ERRATUM
ARAT A HONDA,ZAC H A R Y AMIR,CAL EBE P. MENDE S JONA T H A N H. MOORE and MATTHEW S COT T L USKIN
Within Table 1 the exponents of the following four covari- ates were incorrectly omitted: ‘Oil palm2’, ‘Forest cover2’, ‘Forest integrity2’ and ‘Human footprint2’. Please see the corrected table below:
DOI:
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605322001491. Published online by Cambridge University Press, 4 July 2023 Reference
HONDA, A., AMIR, Z., MENDES, C.P., MOORE, J.H. & LUSKIN,M. (2023) Binturong ecology and conservation in pristine, fragmented and degraded tropical forests. Oryx, published online 4 July 2023.
TABLE. 1 Model selection explaining the variation in camera-trap detections of binturongs Arctictis binturong amongst the landscapes assessed in this study (Fig. 2). The table shows univariate model selection criteria from the zero-inflated Poisson generalized linear mixed modelling assessing variation in independent detections of the binturong, including study effort and landscape as random effects. All covariates were averaged for the 20-km radius areas surrounding the study area, then centred and standardized so that effect sizes can be interpreted relative to each other. The sample sizes were 181 detections from 72 studies in 38 landscapes excluding Singapore, and 181 detections from 91 studies in 41 landscapes including Singapore.
Covariate Forest intactness Reduced (effort only) Estimate
Model selection excluding data from Singapore Oil palm2
−0.70 −0.29
0.83
Model selection including data from Singapore Night lights Forest cover2 Forest cover
−10.10 −0.88
1.20
Forest integrity2 Human footprint2 Null
−1.36 −1.15
1.30 AICc1
276.9 279.9 280.0
280.2 285.3 287.3 287.6 288.7 296.4
LogLik2
−131.2 −134.0 −135.4
−134.2 −135.5 −137.8 −136.6 −137.2 −143.7
ΔAICc3
0.0 3.0 3.1
0.0 5.1 7.1 7.4 8.5
16.2
1AICc, Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample size (lower values indicate better model performance). 2LogLik, log-likelihood (higher values indicate better model fit). 3ΔAICc, difference of AICc to the best-performing model.
Akaike weight
0.69 0.16 0.15
0.87 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2024, 58(2), 269 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323000935
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
