Ideal Technique For ROR1

Small stock occurred widely across the agricultural zones, but was unevenly distributed learn more (Fig. 3). The percentage cheetah prey differed markedly between the strata identified in the agricultural zones (Fig. 4). A list of strata names and identification numbers are supplied in Data S3. In the eastern parts of the Central Agricultural Zone (stratum 5.3), and in the Kgalagadi Agricultural Zone 1 (stratum 8.3), the Makgadikgadi Pans Community stratum (stratum 5.6), and the two strata surrounding the Okavango Delta (strata 6.2 and 6.4), cheetah prey contributed only 0�C5% of the total biomass (cheetah prey plus small stock). This indicates very high probable levels of conflict in these areas. Figure 2 The distribution of cheetah prey biomass in Large Stock Units (LSU) across Botswana. Figure 3 The distribution of small stock biomass in Large Stock Units (LSU) across Botswana. Figure 4 The distribution of the percentage cheetah prey biomass in Large Stock Units (LSU). Livestock attacks recorded per grid cell for the percentage cheetah prey biomass intervals ranged from 0.23 to 0.81 attacks per grid cell with a mean of 0.49 and standard error of 0.25 (N = 8) (Table 2). The number of attacks was consistently below the mean when the percentage cheetah prey biomass exceeded ABT-263 in vitro 20%. The observed frequency of attacks between the categories of percentage cheetah prey differed significantly from the expected values (��2 = 52.42, df = 1, P ROR1 lower than expected in areas with >20% (�� = 0.05, Z = 2.4977). We therefore took grids with ��20% cheetah prey biomass to represent areas with high probable levels of conflict, and >20% cheetah prey biomass to represent areas with low probable levels of conflict. Table 2 The number of livestock attacks by cheetahs per 12�� aerial survey grid in the different percentage cheetah prey intervals, and the overall mean number of attacks per grid. Table 3 Bonferroni intervals to test for categories percentage cheetah prey with observed frequencies of livestock attacks by cheetahs that differed significantly from the expected (k = 4, �� = 0.05, Z = 2.4977). Based on the percentage grid cells per stratum with ��20% cheetah prey, we rated the five classes of landscape suitability identified in ArcMap as very high (0�C6.7% grids), high (6.8�C25% grids), medium (25.1�C50% grids), low (50.1�C75% grids) or unsuitable (75.1�C100% grids) (Fig. 5). Data S4 summarises the number of grid cells per stratum, the number and percentage of grid cells with ��20% cheetah prey, and the suitability class. The classification of some strata as unsuitable for cheetahs was supported by the questionnaire data where the proportion of farmers that reported cheetahs present or absent differed significantly between suitable and unsuitable areas (��2 = 129.11, df = 3, P