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.

Type of agricultural matrix surrounding the forest fragment, popular name of the fragment in the region, total size and geographic coordinate of sampled forest fragments.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Distance gradient in each system.

Each system has three replicates, with five pitfall traps for each place in the system (interior of agricultural matrix, edge of agricultural matrix, edge of forest fragment and interior of forest fragment).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 2.

Numbers of species of ants trapped in fragments and matrices at the various locations, and also the total species trapped when like-locations are combined.

(FF–forest fragment, AM–agricultural matrix).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Variations in ant species richness in the systems.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Non-metric dimensional scale plot.

NMDS for the systems (FF—forest fragment and AM—agricultural matrix). The black lines and numbers represent Jaccard’s similarity values.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

Jaccard’s index of similarity among the systems.

(FF–forest fragment, AM–agricultural matrix). Numbers are rounded to three decimal places. The values range from 0 (not similar) to 1(totally similar). Diagonal values are the number of unique species for the locations. Upper diagonal shows the number of species that occur in both sites.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Non-metric dimensional scale plot.

A) NMDS for agricultural matrix; B) NMDS for forest fragment. The black lines and numbers represent Jaccard’s similarity values.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Functional guilds of ants present in the systems (FF—forest fragments and AM—agricultural matrices).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 4.

Pairwise G test comparing functional guilds between locations.

More »

Table 4 Expand