Fig 1.
Greater Los Angeles area in southern California where we studied mountain lion predation on mule deer.
Shown are sites where mountain lions fed on mule deer (Predation Sites), major freeways, protected parklands, areas of urban development, and agricultural areas.
Table 1.
Resource variables included in resource selection function models for feeding sites used by mountain lions preying on mule deer in southern California, 2002–2015.
Table 2.
Comparison of model fit between models of varying complexity.
Shown are Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) and differences between best model and competing models (ΔAIC).
Table 3.
Results of mixed-effect resource selection models for mountain lions at mule deer feeding sites in and adjacent to Los Angeles in southern California, 2002–2015.
Shown are β coefficients and 95% and 90% confidence intervals. Significant and marginally significant fixed effects, based on 95% and 90% confidence intervals, respectively, shown in bold. Note that for classification-based variables (elevation and slope) positive β indicate selection, negative β indicate avoidance. All other variables are distance-based, so negative β indicate selection, positive β indicate avoidance. Also shown are the mean values at mule deer feeding sites used by mountain lions.
Fig 2.
Relative probability of use of mule deer feeding sites by female mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills, southern California, 2002–2015.
Relative probability of use predicted by generalized linear mixed model of resource selection.
Fig 3.
Relative probability of use of mule deer feeding sites by male mountain lions selection in the Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills, southern California, 2002–2015.
Relative probability of use predicted by generalized linear mixed model of resource selection.
Fig 4.
Functional response by mountain lions feeding on mule deer relative to development.
Functional response is exhibited by the linear relationship between a selection proportion for developed areas (used distance/ used + available distance; y axis) and the mean distance to developed areas across each mountain lions home range (x axis). Selection proportions < 0.5 indicates mountain lions were closer than expected, whereas proportions > 0.5 indicate mountain lions were farther than expected from the resource relative to availability.