Ecological Archives A025-056-A1

A. Justin Nowakowski, Marylin Veiman-Echeverria, David J. Kurz, and Maureen A. Donnelly. 2015. Evaluating connectivity for tropical amphibians using empirically derived resistance surfaces. Ecological Applications 25:928942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-0833.1

Appendix A. Tables containing (1) cost values used to develop resistance surfaces, (2) additional results from microclimatic exposure experiments, and (3) statistical results of choice experiments. Figures showing (1) travel times from substrate resistance experiments with nave observers, (2) the relationship between percentage overlap of species corridors and forest cover, and (3) representations of the three connectivity models.

Table A1. Cost values derived from experiments and survey data using response ratios.

Species

Land use

Source of cost values

 

 

 

 

Oophaga pumilio

Abundance

Water loss

Survival

Substrate

Predation

Choice

 

Banana

41

2.63

12.5

0.95

12.12

1.41

 

Palmito

41

2.63

12.5

0.95

12.12

1.41

 

Pineapple

9.11

3.4

24.24

1.59

6.06

1.15

 

Pasture

9.11

3.4

24.24

1.59

6.06

1.15

 

Water

17.04

2.34

12.58

1.18

6.39

1.19

 

Plantation

5.06

1.82

6.75

0.98

3.53

1.08

 

Forest

1

1

1

1

1

1

Craugasto bransfordii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banana

3.59

3.99

25.93

1.01

0.86

0.94

 

Palmito

3.59

3.99

25.93

1.01

0.86

0.94

 

Pineapple

790

3.72

33.33

1.76

0.86

0.67

 

Pasture

790

3.72

33.33

1.76

0.86

0.67

 

Water

264.86

2.9

20.09

1.26

0.91

0.87

 

Plantation

2.3

2.36

13.47

1.01

0.93

0.97

 

Forest

1

1

1

1

1

1

 

Table A2. GLMM results for analyses of water loss during microclimatic exposure experiments after dropping ambient temperature from the model.

 

Estimate

Std. Error

z value

Pr(>|z|)

(Intercept)

-0.13599

1.85292

-0.073

0.9415

Sp[T.Op]

0.02632

0.37492

0.07

0.9440

SVL

-0.07856

0.08245

-0.953

0.3407

Sex[T.M]

-0.24917

0.41801

-0.596

0.5511

LC.type[T.Palmito]

0.90461

0.48664

1.859

0.0630

LC.type[T.Pasture]

0.93087

0.47606

1.955

0.0505

 

Table A3. Results of binomial tests comparing number of individuals found on each substrate at the end of trial as a measure of substrate choice.

Species

Comparison

Forest (inds)

Alternative (inds)

No Choice

P

O. pumilio

Forest-Palmito

24

17

4

0.5854

O. pumilio

Forest-Pasture

23

20

2

0.5349

C. bransfrodii

Forest-Palmito

17

18

9

0.4857

C. bransfrodii

Forest-Pasture

14

21

10

0.4000

 

FigA1

Fig. A1. Mean travel times for "blind" trials using observers unfamiliar with the study objectives (n = 30) and trials conducted by the primary observers (n = 171). Error bars represent standard deviations.


 

FigA2

Fig. A2. Relationship between percent overlap of predicted movement corridors for each species and percent forest cover in each of the six focal landscapes.


 

FigA3

Fig. A3. One replicate 625 km² landscape in Sarapiquí, Costa Rica. The dominant land cover types are palmito (light gray), pastures (medium gray), and forest (black). Three measures of connectivity are shown between two forest patches (light blue polygons) for C. bransfordii (left) and O. pumilio (right). Euclidean distances are represented by green lines connecting patches. Least-cost paths based on abundance-derived resistance surfaces are shown in red. Areas of high current density from Circuitscape models are shown in blue, yellow and red, with warm colors associated with highest current densities (analogous to net movement probabilities). Note that multiple pathways highlighted by current maps as opposed to single pathways represented by least-cost paths and Euclidean distances.


[Back to A025-056]