Fig 1.
Enclosures and photos from video records.
(a & b) Enclosures consisted of sheet metal walls, (c) a camera trap placed within an enclosure for video recording, (d) photo of a deermouse in the field, and (e) photo of a kangaroo rat in the field.
Fig 2.
Diagrams of enclosures and experimental design.
(A) Diagram of an enclosure with the camera trap array. (B) Diagram of the experimental design. Each column has the number of individuals (M = male, F = female), species richness, and species diversity of each treatment.
Fig 3.
Mean (± standard error) of deermouse visits to the foraging stations and mean (± standard error) number of intra- and interspecific interactions of deermice (DM) among treatments (T).
(a) Number of records of DM at foraging stations; (b) number of intraspecific interactions of DM; (c) number of aggressive interactions between DM; (d) number of interspecific interactions of DM.
Fig 4.
Number of encounters by type of interaction.
DM (deermouse); KR (Kangaroo rat); PM (pocket mouse); GM (grasshopper mouse).
Table 1.
GLM (quasi-Poisson distribution model) results.
Deermice visit to the foraging stations. Bold font indicates significant P values.
Table 2.
GLM (quasi-Poisson distribution model) results.
Intraspecific interactions of deermice. Bold font indicates significant P values.
Table 3.
GLM (quasi-Poisson distribution model) results.
Aggressive interactions between deermice. Bold font indicates significant P values.
Table 4.
GLM (quasi-Poisson distribution model) results.
Interspecific interactions of deermice among treatments. Bold font indicates significant P values.
Fig 5.
Diel activity patterns of deermice in each treatment (T).
(a) samples from late winter, and (b) samples from spring. Bars indicate the proportion of independent records taken at that time of the day. Tick lines represent the mean vector and its circular standard deviation.
Fig 6.
Diel activity patterns of non-competent hosts species.
(a) samples from late winter, and (b) samples from spring. Bars indicate the proportion of independent records taken at that time of the day. Tick lines represent the mean vector and its circular standard deviation.
Table 5.
Mean vector (μ) and circular standard deviation of activity patterns of each species in each treatment (T).
Data shown are the time of the day and degrees (in parentheses). Watson's U2 test was used for comparisons of activity patterns between seasons. Bold font indicates significant P values. DM (deermouse); KR (Kangaroo rat); PM (pocket mouse); GM (grasshopper mouse).
Table 6.
Pairwise comparisons (Watson's U2 test) of activity patterns among rodents in late winter.
Values above the diagonal correspond to P values. Values below the diagonal correspond to U2 statistic values. Significant results in bold.
Table 7.
Pairwise comparisons (Watson's U2 test) of activity patterns among rodents in spring.
Values above the diagonal correspond to P values. Values below the diagonal correspond to U2 statistic values. Significant results in bold.
Table 8.
Results of ROSARIO algorithm null model analyses of temporal niche overlap (both seasons combined).
Overlap was quantified as the average of all pair-wise overlap values calculated via the Czechanowski index, using the numbers of records for each species at two time intervals (30 min and 1 h). P-values are two-tailed probabilities of finding non-random assemblage-wide temporal niche overlap. Tail (T) indicates that empirical overlap occurs on the right-hand (R) side of the simulated distribution. Values in the extreme right indicate coincident activity patterns. Values on the extreme left would have indicated segregated activities. Significant results in bold. Results of temporal niche overlap separated by season are provided in S2 Table.