| Â |
C
1
|
C
2
|
C
3
|
|---|
P
E vs D
3D
| Â | Â | Â |
R
1
| 0.51a
| 0.98 | 0.97 |
R
2
| 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
R
3
| 0.80 | 0.92 | 0.92 |
P
E vs V
| Â | Â | Â |
R
1
| 0.65 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
R
2
| 0.73 | 0.99 | 0.98 |
R
3
| 0.78b
| 0.88 | 0.88 |
- Coefficients of regressions r
2 of the fits shown in Figure 4 of the predation risk P
E as a function of track convolution (D
3D) and in Figure 5 of P
E as a function of swimming speed (V) in the different abundance (C
1, C
2 and C
3) and predator detection radius (R
1, R
2 and R
3). In the P
E vs D
3D case, the regressions were exponential except for C
1
R
1 (abest fit: linear), while in the P
E vs V one they were linear with the exclusion of C
1
R
3 (bbest fit: exponential).
