Table 39. Ranking of models that performed best (within 2 AICs of best fit) in terms of explaining waterbird abundance across Lower Cooper, in relation to each of the explanatory variables tested (see Table 1bfor acronyms). Models were ranked from the best performing (highest AIC) to worst performing from 2048 candidate models. Rain Rain Model# weight Rain AICc LEB_WTA Lag1_LEB_WTA Lag1_Local Lag1_Rain Local.Flow Lower.Cooper.WTA Local df delta SOI Intercept lag1_Lower.Cooper.WTA logLik 217 1.45 + + + + 8.73 -13.08 52.92 0.00 1.00
Table 39. Ranking of models that performed best (within 2 AICs of best fit) in terms of explaining waterbird abundance across Lower Cooper, in relation to each of the explanatory variables tested (see Table 1bfor acronyms). Models were ranked from the best performing (highest AIC) to worst performing from 2048 candidate models. Model# Intercept LEB_WTA Rain Lag1_LEB_WTA lag1_Lower.Cooper.WTA Lag1_Local Rain Lag1_Rain Local.Flow Lower.Cooper.WTA Local Rain SOI df logLik AICc delta weight 217 1.45 + + + + 8.73 -13.08 52.92 0.00 1.00