Effects of acoustic tag implantation on lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens : lack of evidence for changes in behavior

Table 5 Output of GLMs used to compare location-specific detection probabilities of acoustic-tagged lake sturgeon 0–14 days post-release and simultaneously-observed conspecifics tagged in prior years

Phase	Model	IV(s)	df	AICc	w	D* (P)
I	1	Null (intercept only)	17	126.0	0.00	67.9 (<0.01)
	2	Release group	16	124.9	0.00	64.3 (<0.01)
	3	Year	15	131.2	0.00	67.7 (<0.01)
	4	Location	15	88.9	0.19	25.4 (0.04)
II	5	Location, release group	14	88.2	0.28	21.3 (0.09)
II	6	Location, year	13	96.0	0.01	25.2 (0.02)
III	7	Location, release group, year	12	96.4	0.00	20.9 (0.05)
IV	8	Location, release group, location × release group	12	86.9	0.53	11.4 (0.49)
	9	Location, release group, year, location × release group	10	98.9	0.00	11.1 (0.35)
	10	Location, release group, year, location × year	8	119.8	0.00	12.6 (0.13)
	11	Location, release group, year, release group × year	10	108.6	0.00	20.8 (0.02)

IVs independent variables, df degrees of freedom, AICc Akaike’s Information Criterion, w Akaike weights, and goodness of fit statistics (scaled deviance, D*, and P value of associated Chi square test) for generalized linear models used to analyze probability of detection of acoustic-tagged lake sturgeon (0–14 days post-surgery vs. 1+ years post-surgery) at locations in the North Channel of the lower St. Clair River (≤2 km from release sites, >2 km upstream or downstream from release sites) during 2012, 2013, and 2014. Release group identifies individuals observed 0–14 days post-surgery and simultaneously-observed conspecifics tagged in prior years. The highest-ranking (best) model is italicized