Appendix E. Comparison of assignments by fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of individual migratory and tundra-wintering barren-ground, Dolphin and Union island, and boreal caribou to subpopulations in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and northern Alberta, Canada.

TABLE E1. Comparison of fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of migratory barren-ground caribou that used calving grounds A (Cape Bathurst), B (Bluenose-West), C (Bluenose-East), D (Bathurst), and E-1 and F (Beverly) in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, Canada. The subpopulation class for each animal from fuzzy clustering was represented by the group with the largest membership coefficient (*m* = 2.0). Entries represent the number of animals; categories with zero entries are blank. Results are based on clustering of median monthly interval x, y coordinates or 24 variables.

Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from hierarchical clustering |
Calving grounds use (subpopulation) class from fuzzy clustering | |||||

A (Cape Bathurst) | B (Bluenose-West) | C (Bluenose-East) | D (Bathurst) | E-1, F (Beverly) | Total | |

A (Cape Bathurst) | 39 | 2 | 41 | |||

B (Bluenose-West) | 40 | 40 | ||||

C (Bluenose-East) | 2 | 51 | 53 | |||

D (Bathurst) | 52 | 52 | ||||

E-1, F (Beverly) | 62 | 62 | ||||

Total | 39 | 44 | 51 | 52 | 62 | 248 |

TABLE E2. Comparison of fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of migratory barren-ground caribou that used calving grounds C (Bluenose-East), D (Bathurst), and E-1 and F (Beverly) and Dolphin and Union island caribou that calved on Victoria Island (VI) in Nunavut, Canada. The subpopulation class for each animal from fuzzy clustering was represented by the group with the largest membership coefficient (*m* = 2.0). Entries represent the number of animals; categories with zero entries are blank. Results are based on clustering of median monthly interval x, y coordinates or 24 variables.

Calving grounds use (subpopulation) class from hierarchical clustering |
Calving grounds use (subpopulation) class from fuzzy clustering | ||||

C (Bluenose-East) | D (Bathurst) | E-1, F (Beverly) | VI (Dolphin and Union) | Total | |

C (Bluenose-East) | 51 | 51 | |||

D (Bathurst) | 1 | 50 | 2 | 53 | |

E-1, F (Beverly) | 63 | 63 | |||

VI (Dolphin and Union) | 24 | 24 | |||

Total | 52 | 50 | 65 | 24 | 191 |

TABLE E3. Comparison of fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of migratory barren-ground caribou that used calving grounds E-1 and F (Beverly) and G (Qamanirjuaq) and tundra-wintering caribou that used calving ground E including E-1, H, and I (Queen Maude Gulf, Lorillard, and Wager Bay) in Nunavut, Canada. The subpopulation class for each animal from fuzzy clustering was represented by the group with the largest membership coefficient (*m* = 2.0). Entries represent the number of animals; categories with zero entries are blank. Results are based on clustering of median 14-day interval x, y coordinates or 52 variables.

Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from hierarchical clustering |
Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from fuzzy clustering | |||

E-1, F (Beverly) | G (Qamanirjuaq) |
E including E-1, H, I (Queen Maude Gulf, Lorillard, Wager Bay) |
Total | |

E-1, F (Beverly) | 64 | 3 | 67 | |

G (Qamanirjuaq) | 61 | 61 | ||

E including E-1, H, I (Queen Maude Gulf, Lorillard, Wager Bay) |
33 | 33 | ||

Total | 64 | 61 | 36 | 161 |

TABLE E4. Comparison of fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of migratory barren-ground caribou that used calving grounds E-1 and F (Beverly) and tundra-wintering caribou that used calving ground E including E-1 (Queen Maude Gulf) in Nunavut, Canada. The subpopulation class for each animal from fuzzy clustering was represented by the group with the largest membership coefficient (*m* = 2.0). Entries represent the number of animals; categories with zero entries are blank. Results are based on clustering of median 14-day interval x, y coordinates or 52 variables.

Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from hierarchical clustering |
Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from fuzzy clustering | |||

E-1, F (Beverly A) | E-1, F (Beverly B) |
E including E-1 (Queen Maude Gulf A) |
Total | |

E-1, F (Beverly A) | 12 | 12 | ||

E-1, F (Beverly B) | 9 | 30 | 39 | |

E including E-1 (Queen Maude Gulf A) |
2 | 11 | 13 | |

Total | 21 | 32 | 11 | 64 |

TABLE E5. Comparison of fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of tundra-wintering barren-ground caribou that used calving grounds E including E-1, H, I (Queen Maude Gulf, Lorillard, and Wager Bay) in Nunavut, Canada. The subpopulation class for each animal from fuzzy clustering was represented by the group with the largest membership coefficient (*m* = 2.0). Entries represent the number of animals; categories with zero entries are blank. Results are based on clustering of median 14-day interval x, y coordinates or 52 variables.

Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from hierarchical clustering |
Calving ground use (subpopulation) class from fuzzy clustering |
|||

E including E-1 (Queen Maude Gulf) |
H (Lorillard) | I (Wager Bay) | Total | |

E including E-1 (Queen Maude Gulf) |
4 | 4 | ||

H (Lorillard) | 19 | 19 | ||

I (Wager Bay) | 1 | 2 | 10 | 13 |

Grand Total | 5 | 21 | 10 | 36 |

TABLE E6. Comparison of fuzzy (fuzzy c-means) and hierarchical (Ward’s method) clustering of boreal caribou in the Northwest Territories and northern Alberta, Canada. The subpopulation class for each animal from fuzzy clustering was represented by the group with the largest membership coefficient (*m* = 2.0). Entries represent the number of animals; categories with zero entries are blank. Results are based on clustering of median monthly interval x, y coordinates or 24 variables.

Subpopulation class from hierarchical clustering |
Subpopulation structure from fuzzy clustering | ||

Northern | Southern | Total | |

Northern | 55 | 9 | 64 |

Southern | 76 | 76 | |

Total | 55 | 85 | 140 |