Under pressure: comparing in situ and boat tagging methods using time-to-event analyses

Table 3 Cox proportional hazards models with AICc stepwise model ranking for both 4 and 6 days after tagging

Days after tagging	Hazards model	AICc	ΔAICc	χ²	df	p
4	Method + tagging time	131.19	0.00	11.11	2	0.004
	Method	131.47	0.28	8.98	1	0.003
	Method + tagging time + surgery count	131.72	1.53	11.92	3	0.008
	Method + tagging time + fish size + surgery count	134.83	3.64	11.12	3	0.010
	Null	137.52	6.33
6	Method	166.68	0.00	9.78	1	0.002
	Method + tagging time	167.58	0.90	10.82	2	0.004
	Method + tagging time + fish size	169.68	3.00	10.85	3	0.010
	Method + tagging time + fish size + surgery count	171.83	5.15	10.87	4	0.030
	Null	173.38	6.70

All models include probability of presence as the dependent variable and list independent variables included in each individual model. All fish were included in these models (n = 105). p-values are from the log-rank test

ISSN: 2050-3385