Ecological Archives E096-157-A1

Erik T. Ascheoug, F. S. Sivakoff, H. L. Cayton, W. F. Morris, and N. M. Haddad. 2015. Habitat restoration affects immature stages of a wetland butterfly through indirect effects on predation. Ecology 96:14711477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2403.1

Appendix A. Detailed results of all statistical tests, means and confidence intervals or standard error, and figure showing vegetation response to restoration treatments.

Table A1. Type II Wald chi-square test, degrees of freedom, and significance from Before After Control Impact tests of key vegetation community components using linear mixed models. Bold values indicate significant effects (P < 0.05).

 

 

Carex mitchelliana

 

 

All Sedges

 

 

Total Vegetation

Restoration Treatment

χ2

df

p

 

χ2

df

p

 

χ2

df

p

Tree Removal

5.618

1

0.018

 

15.049

1

<0.001

 

40.741

1

<0.001

Damming

0.083

1

0.774

 

0.800

1

0.371

 

21.893

1

<0.001

Tree Removal × Damming

<0.001

1

0.990

 

0.421

1

0.516

 

3.030

1

0.082

 

Table A2. Z test, significance, and number of observations from generalized linear mixed model tests of egg and juvenile survival. Fixed factors and interaction terms indicated under each test. The three-way interaction of tree removal, damming, and predation was not significant for juveniles and therefore dropped from the model. Bold values indicate significant effects (P < 0.05).

 

 

 

Eggs

 

 

 

Juveniles

 

Direct Effects Test

z

p

n

 

z

p

n

Flight Period

-2.323

0.020

29

 

NA

NA

NA

Tree Removal

1.956

0.050

29

 

1.559

0.119

45

Damming

-0.072

0.943

29

 

0.827

0.408

45

Tree Removal × Damming

-1.924

0.054

29

 

-0.410

0.682

45

 

 

 

Eggs

 

 

 

Juveniles

 

Net Effects Test

z

p

n

 

z

p

n

Flight Period

0.922

0.357

30

 

NA

NA

NA

Tree Removal

0.928

0.354

30

 

2.027

0.043

45

Damming

0.417

0.676

30

 

-1.147

0.252

45

Tree Removal × Damming

0.888

0.375

30

 

0.252

0.801

45

 

 

 

Eggs

 

 

 

Juveniles

 

Indirect Effects Test

z

p

n

 

z

p

n

Flight Period

-1.801

0.072

59

 

NA

NA

NA

Predation

-3.639

<0.001

59

 

-3.030

0.002

90

Tree Removal × Predation

-1.206

0.228

59

 

1.120

0.263

90

Damming × Predation

-0.100

0.921

59

 

-2.389

0.017

90

Tree × Damming × Predation

3.551

<0.001

59

 

NA

NA

NA

 

Table A3. Least square mean survival and lower and upper 95% confidence intervals of eggs and juveniles in all restoration and predation treatment types.

   
Predators excluded
Accessible to predators
Predation effect

Eggs

Treatment

Mean

- CI

+ CI

Mean

- CI

+ CI

Response Ratio

Flight Period 1

Control

0.783

0.569

0.907

0.742

0.547

0.872

 0.040

 

Tree Removal

0.826

0.659

0.921

0.360

0.188

0.578

 0.715

 

Dam

0.941

0.775

0.987

0.432

0.242

0.645

 0.688

 

Tree Removal and Dam

0.791

0.559

0.919

0.326

0.172

0.530

 0.692

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flight Period 2

Control

0.479

0.278

0.686

0.562

0.353

0.751

-0.268

 

Tree Removal

0.498

0.288

0.708

0.117

0.044

0.276

 0.847

 

Dam

0.507

0.288

0.723

0.232

0.096

0.461

 0.666

 

Tree Removal and Dam

0.586

0.392

0.757

0.418

0.234

0.628

 0.403

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juveniles

Control

0.594

0.406

0.758

0.195

0.096

0.356

 0.672

 

Tree Removal

0.439

0.267

0.628

0.071

0.028

0.171

 0.838

 

Dam

0.539

0.331

0.735

0.370

0.198

0.583

 0.315

 

Tree Removal and Dam

0.350

0.201

0.536

0.138

0.062

0.277

 0.607

 

FigA1

Fig. A1. Mean percent cover of (A) Carex mitchelliana; (B) all sedges; and (C) total vegetation averaged by primary restoration treatment type. Note different scales on y axis in each panel. Black bars represent pre-restoration estimates from April 2011 and gray bars represent post-restoration estimates from April 2012. Error bars are ±1SE.


[Back to E096-157]