Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Total number of juvenile Cytisus shrubs in each plot and total cover (%) for each cover type (species, bare soil and litter).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 1.

Juvenile Cytisus hot spots detected with local Gi* statistic in F. nigrescens or F. eskia grasslands.

Number of hot spots is given in brackets.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Scale of pattern for each cover type in F. nigrescens or F. eskia grasslands.

Cover types: FesNig = Festuca nigrescens; FesEsk = Festuca eskia; CalVul = Calluna vulgaris; CarSp = Carex sp. (A = cover type absent in the plot; N = scale of pattern is non-significant below 5 m).

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Scales of positive and negative associations between juvenile Cytisus and each cover type in F. nigrescens or F. eskia grasslands.

Cover type: FesNig = Festuca nigrescens; FesEsk = Festuca eskia; CalVul = Calluna vulgaris; CarSp = Carex sp. (A = cover type absent in the plot; N = association is non-significant below 5 m). All the scales of association except those indicated (N) are significant (p<0.05) based on randomization tests used to build a null covariance model and the associated 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Figure 4.

Scales of positive and negative associations between each cover type and a) short juvenile Cytisus (height<10 cm) and b) tall juvenile Cytisus (height>30 cm) in F. nigrescens or F. eskia grasslands.

Cover types: FesNig = Festuca nigrescens; FesEsk = Festuca eskia; CalVul = Calluna vulgaris; CarSp = Carex sp. (A = cover type absent in the plot; J = juvenile Cytisus with height>30 cm absent in the plot; N = association is non-significant below 5 m). All the scales of association except those indicated (N) are significant (p<0.05) based on randomization tests used to build a null covariance model and the associated 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Figure 4 Expand