Table 2 A priori candidate generalized linear mixed models to explain protein expression in skin collected from grizzly bears in Alberta, Canada.

M1

Distance to roads + (1|watershed unit)

Roads influence protein expression by creating attractive sink habitat due to increased foods and higher probability of mortality

^52,56

M2

Distance to rail/power lines + (1|watershed unit)

Railways and powerlines influence protein expression by providing food resources, edge habitat, and areas largely away from motorized traffic

⁵²

M3

Cutblock age + (1|watershed unit)

Younger forest stands will have higher food resources that impact protein expression

^52,56

M4

Distance to coal mines + (1|watershed unit)

Coal mines have low vegetation but high ungulate density as food resources, and predictable levels of human use that affect protein expression

⁵⁷

M5

Protected area + (1|watershed unit)

Protected areas are comprised of mostly old forest (less food availability) with relatively low levels of human use that influences protein expression

^53,58

M6

Percent conifer + (1|watershed unit)

The species composition of trees in the area will dictate behavior and consequently protein expression

^59,60

M7

Crown closure + (1|watershed unit)

Poor food resources in forests with increased crown closure will influence protein expression

⁶¹

M8

Upland herbaceous area + Wetland herbaceous area + (1|watershed unit)

Herbaceous resources around water and shrubs provide food resources that will affect protein expression

^58,62

M9

Mean movement + (1|watershed unit)

Increased movement from searching for food and mates influences protein expression

⁵⁵

M10

Reproductive class + Age class + (1|watershed unit)

Changes in physiology due to sexual maturity or having offspring influences protein expression

²⁸

M11

Null

None of the covariates affect protein expression