Replication data for: Fig 7.1 and 7.2, Focal and scan samples summaries, GPDs, 04 Nov 2025

FILE DESCRIPTION Keywords: Gunnison's prairie dog, vigilance, focal and scan samples File name = Fig 7.1 and 7.2, Focal and scan samples summaries, GPDs, 04 Nov 2025 OLD File name = GPDs, Focal and scan summaries used in Hirschler, 15 May 2015 I received this file from Ian Hirschler sometime in fall 2021. I have not made any changes. Mean of all scan samples= the overall average for vigilance per GPD from scan (Instantaneous) samples, with ONE MEAN scan score for each GPD (N = 101 different GPDs) Mean of all focal samples = the overall average for vigilance per GPD from focal samples, with ONE MEAN focal score for each GPD (N = 60 different GPDs) Ian Hirschler checked these data TWO TIMES for the following publication: Hirschler, I. M., J. L. Gedert, J. Major, T. Townsend, J. L. Hoogland. 2016. What is the best way to estimate vigilance? A comparison of two methods for Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni). Animal Behaviour 121: 117-122. This file ready for longterm storage on 30 May 2025 In combination with data from Hoogland et al. 2013 (ref-1327), this file used for Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of Hoogland 2026. Citation for ref-1327 is the following: Hoogland, J. L., S. L. Hale, A. D. Kirk, and Y. D. Sui. 2013. Individual variation in vigilance among white-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys leucurus). Southwestern Naturalist 58:279-285. File name = Fig 7.1 and 7.2, Focal and scan samples summaries, GPDs, 04 Nov 2025 More information for this file: All data here are from the GPD Redondo Meadow Colony at Valles Caldera National Preserve in 2014 GPD Redondo Meadow Colony (RMC, studied in 2013 through 2016) was at Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP). GPD Visitor Center Colony (VCC, studied in 2017 and 2018) was also at VCNP. GPD colony at Petrified Forest National Park (PEFO) was studied from 1989 through 1995. For statistical analyses of focal samples, I used data from a single overall percentage for the entire field season calculated from single percentages of vigilance from focal samples per day per individual. For statistical analyses of scan samples, I used a single mean estimate of vigilance per individual over the entire field season calculated from single mean percentages of vigilance per day from all daily scan samples. Ian Hirshcler created this file and checked all data TWO TIMES before publication of Hirschler et al. 2016. GPD marker = Nyanzol dye marker. No information from eartags in this file. Note, however, that all data are from a single year (2014). These data used for Fig 7.1 and 7.2 in Hoogland 2026. This file ready for longterm storage on 30 May 2025. Notice that this file is now sorted BY INDIVIDUAL GPD. I did that sorting to get the "Single estimate per individual of GPD vigilance from focal samples" = 18.6% + 10% (Mean + SD) depicted in Figure 7.1. I also used sorting to get the "Single estimate per individual of GPD vigilance from scan samples = 31.3% + 11.7%. This file thus contains ALL RAW DATA for GPD focal samples and for GPD scan samples for Fig 7.1. The raw data in this file for GPD focal samples comes from 60 different GPDs. The raw data in this file for GPD scan samples comes from 101 different GPDs. Citation for Hirschler et al. 2016. Hirschler, I. M., J. L. Gedert, J. Major, T. Townsend, J. L. Hoogland. 2016. What is the best way to estimate vigilance? A comparison of two methods for Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni). Animal Behaviour 121: 117-122. File name = Fig 7.1 and 7.2, Focal and scan samples summaries, GPDs, 30 May 2025 Note that the data in this file are PROPORTIONS. To convert proportions to PERCENTAGES for Figs 7.1 and 7.2, I multiplied proportions by 100.