6533b7dbfe1ef96bd1270a58

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Table S1;Table S2;Table S3;Table S4;Figure S1 from Scavenging in the realm of senses: smell and vision drive recruitment at carcasses in neotropical ecosystems

subject

description

Scavenger species registered in the community. For each of them, we specified the common name, the scientific name and the taxonomic group (i.e., vulture, other bird, mammal or reptile).;Times of first arrival of each species from carcass placement and maximum abundance (i.e., average number of individuals present in each carcass size) of each species separately for large and small carcasses, both represented as the mean and standard deviation, i.e., X̅ ± SD.;Model coefficients for large carcasses by means generalized lineal models (GLMs) showing the influence of the linear predictor (L_ijt) and the biotic predictor (h_ijt: influence of heterospectifics) on each of the scavenging species. The biotic predictor considered the presence-absence (presence), the proportion of time present (time) or the maximum abundance (abundance) during the previous focal time (t) of all species together (all), only birds with olfactory capacity (can smell) or each species separately (common name of the species). Model for turkey vulture only shows the abiotic factor, as other species did not appear previously in the same carcasses enough times. Only top-ranking models are represented (i.e., ΔAICc <2). Estimate and its p-value (p) for abiotic and biotic predictors, and deviance explained (D2) by top-ranking models are showed. Significant p-values for biotic predictor are in bold.;Model coefficients for small carcasses by means generalized lineal models (GLMs) showing the influence of the linear predictor (L_ijt) and the biotic predictor (h_ijt: influence of heterospectifics) on each of the scavenging species. The biotic predictor considered the presence-absence, the proportion of time present or the maximum abundance during the previous focal time (t) of all species together (all), only birds with olfactory capacity (can smell) or each species separately (common name of the species). Models for hoary fox and black-and-white tegu in small carcasses only show the abiotic factor because we only obtained the abiotic model, as other species did not appear previously in the same carcasses enough times. Only top-ranking models are represented (i.e., ΔAICc <2). Estimate and its p-value (p) for abiotic and biotic predictors, and deviance explained (D2) by top-ranking models are showed. Significant p-values for biotic predictor are in bold.;Results of the logistic regression on heterospecific influence on first arrival times, shown separately for large and small carcasses. Circles refer to the influence of the baseline predictor L_ijt, and the squares to the heterospecific influence. Positive and significant (p<0.05) influence on the occurrence of each focal species is indicated in green; non-significant effects are indicated in gray and model combinations not considered are shown in white. The absence of squares indicates that there is no model for that focal species. The different combinations for B1-B4 (i.e., importance of the presence or abundance of the influencer) and C1-C3 (i.e., previous time considered) assumptions are represented in the mini-squares. In Fig. 2 of the main text, we show results for data discretized to time resolution of Δt=10 min, and the case where the time since carcass placement was included in the baseline model. Here we show results also for other choices of these parameters: A) Δt=1 min with time since carcass placement excluded, B) Δt=1 min with time since carcass placement included, C) Δt=10 min with time since carcass placement included, D) Δt=10 min with time since carcass placement included, E) Δt=1 hour with time since carcass placement excluded, and F) Δt=1 hour with time since carcass placement included.