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

Table 6 Output of GLMs used to compare location-specific detection probabilities of acoustic-tagged lake sturgeon 15–29 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	74.4	0.04	21.5 (0.20)
	2	Release group	16	76.3	0.02	20.9 (0.18)
	3	Year	15	77.7	0.01	19.3 (0.20)
	4	Location	15	68.8	0.68	10.5 (0.79)
II	5	Location, release group	14	71.5	0.18	9.8 (0.78)
II	6	Location, year	13	73.8	0.06	8.2 (0.83)
III	7	Location, release group, year	12	76.5	0.01	6.3 (0.90)
IV	8	Location, release group, location × release group	12	77.9	0.01	7.7 (0.81)
	9	Location, release group, year, location × release group	10	86.7	0.00	4.0 (0.95)
	10	Location, release group, year, location × year	8	107.3	0.00	5.3 (0.73)
	11	Location, release group, year, release group × year	10	86.7	0.00	4.0 (0.95)

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 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 15–29 days post-surgery and simultaneously-observed conspecifics tagged in prior years. The highest-ranking (best) model is italicized