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

Figure 1.

Location of the study region and sampling sites (land mosaics) used to investigate water vole occupancy according to patch-network and matrix characteristics.

Examples of four land mosaics with different patch-network and matrix characteristics are also presented. Triangles, circles and squares represent sampling sites surveyed respectively in 2006 (n = 20), 2007 (n = 37), and 2008 (n = 18). Colours indicate the sampling season of surveys: dry season (black, n = 38) and wet season (grey, n = 37) (see text for details).

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Table 1.

Summary statistics of habitat-network and matrix variables recorded per land mosaic, and overall and seasonal occupancy patterns of water voles in south-western Portugal.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Summary results of a principal component analysis based on variables describing the characteristics of habitat patch-networks of water voles in southwestern Portugal (N = 69).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Summary results of a principal component analysis based on matrix variables characterising the land mosaics surveyed for water voles in southwestern Portugal (N = 75).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Figure 2.

Redundancy Analysis (RDA) relating patch-network and matrix gradients performed for the 69 land mosaics including suitable habitat for water voles.

Bi-plot of the first two canonical axes of patch-network (H1, H2, H3) and matrix gradients (M1, M2, M3). Patch-network variables and sites were scaled symmetrically by the square root of eigenvalues. Eigeinvalues for axis 1 = 0.304, and axis 2 = 0.059. Habitat-matrix correlations for the first two axes were 0.996 and 0.942. Explained variation was 0.37, pseudo-F = 3.01, p = 0.01. Effects of matrix characteristics on patch-network structure were significant in respect to irrigated agriculture (M1, p<0.01) and pasture intensification (M2, p = 0.02), but not significant regarding forest plantation (M3, p = 0.827).

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 4.

Akaike weights (wi) of univariate models fitted to test alternative water vole response curves (linear or quadratic) to the main mosaic gradients describing the habitat-network and the matrix.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Summary results of information-theoretic model selection and multimodel inference on the relationships between mosaic occupancy of water voles across spatial resolutions and the mosaic gradients describing habitat-networks (H1, H2, H3) and matrix types (M1, M2, M3), and the autocovariate terms (ATC) for spatially correlated responses (see text).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Summary results of information-theoretic model selection and multimodel inference performed separately for each season to compare seasonal relationships between mosaic occupancy of water voles across spatial resolutions, and the mosaic gradients describing habitat-networks (H1, H2, H3) and matrix types (M1, M2, M3), and the autocovariate terms (ATC) for spatially correlated responses (see text).

More »

Table 6 Expand