Appendix 8.1 – Environmental characteristics of each monitored farmsteads
Caniceira Zambujo
Geographical Location
• Tramagal, Abrantes municipality, Santarém district (central region of Portugal), in the Médio Tejo sub-region.
• Centroid’s coordinates:
-7.004,39.75
• Rosmaninhal, Idanha-a-Nova municipality, Castelo Branco District (central region of Portugal) in the beira baixa Beira Baixa sub-region.
• Centroid’s coordinates: -8.25,39.41
Size 557 ha 397 ha
Climate
• Csa (temperate climate with dry and hot summers; Peel et al.,
2007).
• Mean annual temperature of 16.0ºC and mean annual rainfall of 684
mm (Site climate-data.org).
• Csa (temperate climate with dry and hot summers; Peel et al., 2007).
• Mean annual temperature of 15.8ºC and mean annual rainfall of 635 mm (Site climate-data.org).
Habitat Composition (©The Navigator
Company S.A.)
• Eucalyptus globulus plantation - 69.0% of the area (385 ha).
• Montado of Quercus suber – 7.0%
of the area (37 ha).
• Pinus pinea and Pinus pinaster - 6%
of the area (34 ha).
• Inland waters - 0.06% of the area (0.33 ha).
• Dirt roads - 5% of the area (26 ha).
• Infrastructures - 2% of the area (9 ha).
• Other habitats (e.g. arable crops, rocky crops) - 10.94% of the area /65.67 ha).
• Eucalyptus globulus plantation - 69.2% of the area (275 ha).
• Montado of Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia - 27.6% of the area (109.5 ha).
• Inland waters - 1.7% of the area (6.8 ha).
• Dirt roads - 1.3% of the area (5.3 ha).
• Infrastructures - 0.1% of the area (0.5 ha).
Main management goal
• Forestry production (Eucalyptus globulus).
• Predominantly focused on habitat and wildlife conservation with some managment.
Human disturbance
• Crossed by a tarred road.
• Forestry nurseries and other buildings.
• Constant anthropogenic activities (Forestry, livestock raising).
• Hunting.
• Hunting.
Specificities
• Presence of a stream (Ribeira de Alcolobra) parts of which are dry during the summer months.
• More humid climate.
• Waterlines and streams surrounded by a well-developed riparian
• Bordered to the west by the Erges river and intersected by a stream (Ribeira do Muro Alto), which dries during the summer months.
• Drier climate.
49 vegetation, composed mainly by
Rubus spp., Ruscus aculeatus, Osmunda regalis, Alnus glutinosa, and Arbutus unedo.
• More marked transition between landscape units (edges).
• More intensive management of Eucalyptus plantation, with trees located in well-defined rows and with very sparse understory vegetation.
• Less pronounced slopes, flatter ground
• Waterlines and streams with rocky banks and very little riparian vegetation.
• Less intensive management of Eucalyptus plantations, with more developed understory vegetation, mainly composed of Cistus albidus and Cistus ladanifer.
• Steeper slopes and less levelled ground
Appendix 8.2 – Explanatory variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure grouped by hypothesis (H) with the corresponding description, acronym, units and range and source of data.
Variable description Variable acronym Units [min - max] Data Source H1 – Food resources
% Fruit trees Fruits [0 - 100] %
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the
camera site Mus spretus abundance Mus
Pounds relative abundance index
[0 – 115,4]
Field sampling Coleoptera abundance Coleoptera Abundance [0 - 22] Field sampling
Other invertebrates
abundance Invertebrates Abundance [0 -158] Field sampling H2 – Water resources
Distance from camera site
to main water lines D_1_water meters [9 – 2591,6]
Epic Webgis Portugal http://epic-webgis-portugal.isa.ulisboa.pt/
Distance from camera site
to secondary water lines D_2_water meters [2 – 665,9]
Epic Webgis Portugal http://epic-webgis-portugal.isa.ulisboa.pt/
H3 – Anthropogenic disturbances Ease of human access to
the camera site Accessibility
Categorical [1 (very difficult) – 5
(very easy)]
Field observation
Types of anthropogenic disturbances around each
camera site
Dists
Categorical [A (no disturbances);
B (road); C (hunting signs); D (agriculture
areas); E (cattle presence)]
Field observation
H4 – Orography Slope angle of the site
where the camera is placed
Slope % [0 - >25]
Epic Webgis Portugal http://epic-webgis-portugal.isa.ulisboa.pt/
50 Slope orientation of the
site where the camera is placed
Orientation
Categorical [A (north); B (south);
C (east); D (west)]
Epic Webgis Portugal http://epic-webgis-portugal.isa.ulisboa.pt/
H5 – Habitat structure Rocky formations’ cover % Rock % [0 - 100]
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the camera site
Tree cover % Arboreal % [0 - 100]
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the camera site
Shrub cover % Shrub % [0 - 100]
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the camera site
Herbaceous cover % Herbaceous % [0 - 100]
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the camera site
Average height of shrub
cover Shrub_height Centimetres [0 - 120]
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the camera site
H6 – Land cover composition
Eucalyptus growth phase Eucalyptus_growth _phase
Categorical [A (no eucalyptus);
B (initial); C (intermediate); D (pre-harvesting)]
Field observation in a 20m buffer around the camera site
% Land cover PC % [0 - 100]
Land use and land cover map of continental Portugal - COS2018 https://snig.dgterritorio.
gov.pt/
in a 200m buffer around the camera site
H7 – Edge
Edge's range of influence Range of influence Meters [0 – 39,59]
Google earth
https://earth.google.com /web/
in a 200m buffer around the camera site
Presence of Pathways Pathways Presence/Absence
Google earth
https://earth.google.com /web/
in a 200m buffer around the camera site
Camera placement - on an edge or not (habitat
interior)
Camera placement Edge/Habitat interior Field observation
Edge density Edge density Meters by square meters [0 – 0,39]
Land use and land cover map of continental Portugal - COS2018 https://snig.dgterritorio.
gov.pt/
in a 200m buffer around the camera site
51
Appendix 8.3 – Percentage of variance explained by each Principal Component (PC), resulting from the Principal Components Analysis of the land cover variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure for both study areas.
PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PC 5 PC 6 PC 7 PC 8 PC 9 PC 10 PC 11 Proportion
of variance 0.24 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 <0.001 Cumulative
proportion 0.24 0.40 0.53 0.64 0.72 0.80 0.87 0.92 0.96 0.99 1
Appendix 8.4 – Contribution of the original variables for each of the components (PC) of a Principal Components Analysis of the land-use variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure for both study areas.
Original Variable PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4
% Montado 0.521 0.221 0.144 -
% Eucalyptus -0.335 -0.525 0.336 -
% Other hardwoods -0.245 0.324 -0.418 -0.146
% Pine trees - - -0.671 0.238
% Pastures 0.295 - - -0.263
% Shrublands - 0.198 - -0.666
% Protected agriculture and
nurseries - 0.338 0.391 0.389
% Infrastructures and
buildings -0.208 0.418 0.116 -0.393
% Inland waters 0.448 - - -
% Arable crops - 0.478 0.169 0.295
% Pathways and firebreaks -0.452 - 0.196 -
PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PC 5 PC 6 PC 7 PC 8 PC 9 PC 10 Proportion
of variance 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.01 <0.001 Cumulative
proportion 0.25 0.46 0.66 0.76 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.99 0.99 1
Appendix 8.5 – Percentage of variance explained by each component (PC), resulting from the Principal Components Analysis of the land cover variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure for Caniceira.
52
Original Variable PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4
% Montado 0.35 0.50 - -
% Eucalyptus -0.42 0.14 0.43 -0.32
% Other hardwoods - -0.32 -0.43 -
% Pine trees 0.25 -0.45 - 0.31
% Shrublands -0.40 - -0.46 -
% Protected agriculture and
nurseries 0.20 0.43 -0.11 -0.12
% Infrastructures and
buildings -0.20 - -0.56 -0.32
% Inland waters -0.33 0.16 - 0.79
% Arable crops 0.30 0.35 -0.31 0.23
% Pathways -0.45 0.29 - 0.11
Appendix 8.6 – Contribution of the original variables for each of the components (PC) of a Principal Components Analysis of the land-use variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure for Caniceira.
PC 1 PC 2 PC 3 PC 4 PC 5 PC 6 Proportion
of variance 0.40 0.21 0.19 0.12 0.08 <0.001 Cumulative
proportion 0.40 0.62 0.80 0.92 1 1
Appendix 8.7 – Percentage of variance explained by each Principal Component (PC), resulting from the Principal Components Analysis of the land cover variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure for Zambujo.
Appendix 8.8 – Contribution of the original variables for each of the components (PC) of a Principal Components Analysis of the land-use variables used in the GLMs modelling procedure for Zambujo.
Original Variable PC 1 PC 2 PC 3
% Montado 0.57 0.34 0.11
% Eucalyptus -0.60 -0.27 -0.15
% Pastures 0.18 -0.63 -0.18
% Shrublands - -0.24 0.85
% Inland waters 0.42 - -0.45
% Pathways -0.32 0.59 -
53
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc Null
model -110.72 1.93
H1
Coleoptera 58.559 -111.12 0 1.53
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 58.872 -109.74 1.38 2.91
Fruits + Coleoptera 58.602 -109.2 1.92 3.45
Fruits 57.587 -109.17 1.95 3.48
Mus + Coleoptera 58.559 -109.12 2 3.53
Mus 57.559 -108.8 2.32 3.85
Invertebrates 57.382 -108.76 2.36 3.89
Fruits + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 58.937 -107.87 3.25 4.78
Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 58.882 -107.76 3.36 4.89
Fruits + Mus 57.639 -107.28 3.84 5.37
Fruits + Invertebrates 57.638 -107.28 3.84 5.37
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera 58.602 -107.2 3.92 5.45
Mus + Invertebrates 57.441 -106.88 4.24 5.77
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 58.955 -105.91 5.21 6.74
Fruits + Mus + Invertebrates 57.729 -105.45 5.67 7.2
H2
D_2_water 59.061 -112.12 0 0.53
D_1_water + D_2_water 59.199 -110.4 1.72 2.25
D_1_water 57.549 -109.1 3.02 3.55
H3
Accessibility 57.366 -108.73 0 3.92
Dists 58.365 -104.73 4 7.92
Accessibility + Dists 58.421 -102.84 5.89 9.81
H4 Orientation 59.453 -108.91 0 3.74
Appendix 8.9 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the red fox for the general dataset. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
54
Slope 57.367 -108.73 0.18 3.92
Slope + Orientation 2.72 -108 0.91 4.65
H5
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 60.325 -112.65 0 0
% Herbaceous 59.014 -112.03 0.62 0.62
% Arboreal + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 60.562 -111.12 1.53 1.53
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 59.472 -110.94 1.71 1.71
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 60.464 -110.93 1.72 1.72
% Arboreal 58.403 -110.81 1.84 1.84
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal 60.385 -110.77 1.88 1.88
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 59.326 -110.65 2 2
% Rock + % Herbaceous 59.014 -110.03 2.62 2.62
Shrub_height 57.884 -109.77 2.88 2.88
% Rock + % Arboreal 58.72 -109.44 3.21 3.21
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 58.717 -109.43 3.22 3.22
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 60.609 -109.22 3.43 3.43
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height 60.586 -109.17 3.48 3.48
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 60.571 -109.14 3.51 3.51
% Herbaceous + % Shrub + Shrub_height 59.535 -109.07 3.58 3.58
% Shrub 57.482 -108.96 3.69 3.69
% Rock + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 59.472 -108.94 3.71 3.71
% Rock 57.465 -108.93 3.72 3.72
% Arboreal + % Shrub 58.432 -108.86 3.79 3.79
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Shrub 59.345 -108.69 3.96 3.96
% Rock + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 58.992 -107.98 4.67 4.67
% Rock + Shrub_height 57.975 -107.95 4.7 4.7
% Shrub + Shrub_height 57.884 -107.77 4.88 4.88
% Rock + % Arboreal + % Shrub 58.813 -107.63 5.02 5.02
% Shrub + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 58.73 -107.46 5.19 5.19
% Rock + % Shrub 57.667 -107.33 5.32 5.32
% Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock + % Herbaceous 59.539 -107.08 5.57 5.57
55
% Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock 58.995 -105.99 6.66 6.66
% Rock + % Shrub + Shrub_height 57.984 -105.97 6.68 6.68
H6
PC 2 57.819 -109.64 0 3.01
PC 1 57.725 -109.45 0.19 3.2
PC 4 57.598 -109.2 0.44 3.45
PC 3 57.433 -108.87 0.77 3.78
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 57.399 -108.8 0.84 3.85
PC 1 + PC 2 58.194 -108.39 1.25 4.26
PC 2 + PC 4 58.064 -108.13 1.51 4.52
PC 1 + PC 4 57.968 -107.94 1.7 4.71
PC 2 + PC 3 57.894 -107.79 1.85 4.86
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 57.867 -107.73 1.91 4.92
PC 1 + PC 3 57.8 -107.6 2.04 5.05
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 57.726 -107.45 2.19 5.2
PC 3 + PC 4 57.673 -107.35 2.29 5.3
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 57.643 -107.29 2.35 5.36
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 57.522 -107.04 2.6 5.61
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 58.444 -106.89 2.75 5.76
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 58.471 -106.83 2.81 5.82
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 58.271 -106.54 3.1 6.11
PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 58.14 -106.28 3.36 6.37
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 4 58.105 -106.21 3.43 6.44
PC 1 + PC 3 + PC 4 58.045 -106.09 3.55 6.56
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 4 57.97 -105.94 3.7 6.71 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 3 57.91 -105.82 3.82 6.83 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 57.814 -105.63 4.01 7.02 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 + PC 4 57.771 -105.54 4.1 7.11 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 58.654 -105.31 4.33 7.34
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 58.522 -105.04 4.6 7.61
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 58.426 -104.85 4.79 7.8
56 PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase 58.152 -104.3 5.34 8.35
PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 58.062 -104.12 5.52 8.53
H7
Pathways 57.679 -109.36 0 3.29
Edge influence 57.42 -108.84 0.52 3.81
Edge density 57.36 -108.72 0.64 3.93
Edge influence + Pathways 57.834 -107.67 1.69 4.98
Pathways + Edge density 57.685 -107.37 1.99 5.28
Edge influence + Edge density 57.421 -106.84 2.52 5.81
Area of influence + Pathways + Edge density 57.834 -105.67 3.69 6.98
57
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -44.155 0.883
H1
Mus 24.411 -42.821 0 2.217
Fruits 24.371 -42.742 0.079 2.296
Coleoptera 24.256 -42.513 0.308 2.525
Invertebrates 24.143 -42.287 0.534 2.751
Fruits + Mus 24.783 -41.567 1.254 3.471
Fruits + Invertebrates 24.59 -41.18 1.641 3.858 Mus + Invertebrates 24.47 -40.94 1.881 4.098 Fruits + Coleoptera 24.427 -40.854 1.967 4.184
Mus + Coleoptera 24.411 -40.821 2 4.217
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 24.373 -40.746 2.075 4.292 H2
D_2_water 24.607 -43.213 0 1.825
D_1_water 24.229 -42.459 0.754 2.579
D_1_water + D_2_water 24.918 -41.835 1.378 3.203 H3
Accessibility 24.39 -42.779 0 2.259
Dists 24.701 -39.402 3.377 5.636
Accessibility + Dists 24.893 -37.785 4.994 7.253 H4
Slope 24.286 -42.572 0 2.466
Slope + Orientation 26.898 -41.795 0.777 3.243
Orientation 25.122 -40.245 2.327 4.793
H5
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 26.519 -45.038 0 0
% Herbaceous 25.449 -44.899 0.139 0.139
% Arboreal 24.541 -43.082 1.956 1.956
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 25.531 -43.061 1.977 1.977
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 25.509 -43.017 2.021 2.021
Shrub_height 24.304 -42.607 2.431 2.431
% Shrub 24.078 -42.156 2.882 2.882
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 24.837 -41.674 3.364 3.364
% Arboreal + % Shrub 24.625 -41.249 3.789 3.789
% Shrub + Shrub_height 24.494 -40.988 4.05 4.05
H6
PC 3 24.570 -43.141 0 1.897
PC 4 24.520 -43.04 1.101 1.998
PC 2 24.331 -42.662 0.479 2.376
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 24.234 -42.467 0.674 2.571
PC 1 24.079 -42.159 0.982 2.879
PC 3 + PC 4 25.038 -42.077 1.064 2.961
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 24.844 -41.688 1.453 3.35
PC 2 + PC 3 24.838 -41.677 1.464 3.361
PC 2 + PC 4 24.787 -41.573 1.568 3.465
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 24.626 -41.252 1.889 3.789 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 24.583 -41.165 1.976 3.873
Appendix 8.10 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the red fox for the Caniceira farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
58
PC 1 + PC 3 24.572 -41.145 1.996 3.893
PC 1 + PC 4 24.522 -41.044 2.097 3.994
PC 1 + PC 2 24.333 -40.666 2.475 4.372
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 24.257 -40.515 2.626 4.523
H7
Pathways 24.233 -42.466 0 2.572
Edge influence 24.186 -42.372 0.094 2.666
Edge density 24.161 -42.322 0.144 2.716
Edge influence + Pathways 24.428 -40.856 1.61 4.182 Pathways + Edge density 24.346 -40.692 1.774 4.346 Edge influence + Edge density 24.236 -40.472 1.994 4.566
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -79.233 2.852
H1
Coleoptera 42.882 -79.7664 0 2.3186
Mus 42.715 -79.43 0.3364 2.655
Mus + Coleoptera 43.217 -78.433 1.3334 3.652
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 43.181 -78.363 1.4034 3.722 Mus + Invertebrates 43.162 -78.325 1.4414 3.76
Invertebrates 42.122 -78.244 1.5224 3.841
Fruits + Coleoptera 42.965 -77.93 1.8364 4.155
Fruits + Mus 42.817 -77.634 2.1324 4.451
Fruits 41.627 -77.253 2.5134 4.832
Fruits + Invertebrates 42.21 -76.421 3.3454 5.664 H2
D_2_water 42.421 -78.841 0 3.244
D_1_water 41.665 -77.331 1.51 4.754
D_1_water + D_2_water 42.623 -77.247 1.594 4.838 H3
Accessibility 41.625 -77.25 0 4.835
Dists 42.076 -74.153 3.097 7.932
Accessibility + Dists 42.756 -73.512 3.738 8.573 H4
Slope + Orientation 45.948 -79.897 0 2.188
Orientation 44.202 -78.403 1.494 3.682
Slope 42.057 -78.114 1.783 3.971
H5
% Arboreal 41.705 -77.41 0 4.675
% Herbaceous 41.677 -77.355 0.055 4.73
% Rock 41.63 -77.259 0.151 4.826
Shrub_height 41.629 -77.258 0.152 4.827
% Shrub 41.625 -77.251 0.159 4.834
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 41.791 -75.581 1.829 6.504
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 41.774 -75.548 1.862 6.537
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 41.765 -75.53 1.88 6.555
Appendix 8.11 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the red fox for the Zambujo farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
59
% Rock + % Arboreal 41.711 -75.422 1.988 6.663
% Arboreal + % Shrub 41.709 -75.417 1.993 6.668
% Rock + % Herbaceous 41.704 -75.409 2.001 6.676
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 41.678 -75.356 2.054 6.729
% Rock + Shrub_height 41.647 -75.294 2.116 6.791
% Shrub + Shrub_height 41.644 -75.288 2.122 6.797
% Rock + % Shrub 41.631 -75.262 2.148 6.823
H6
PC 2 44.042 -82.085 0 0
PC 2 + PC 3 44.187 -80.374 1.711 1.711
PC 1+ PC 2 44.103 -80.207 1.878 1.878
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 44.047 -80.094 1.991 1.991
PC 3 41.727 -77.453 4.632 4.632
PC 1 41.663 -77.326 4.759 4.759
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 41.623 -77.246 4.839 4.839 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 42.040 -76.079 6.006 6.006
PC 1 + PC 3 41.774 -75.548 6.537 6.537
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 41.740 -75.48 6.605 6.605
H7
Edge density 42.356 -78.773 0 3.312
Pathways 41.971 -77.942 0.831 4.143
Pathways + Edge density 42.654 -77.308 1.465 4.777
Edge influence 41.616 -77.233 1.54 4.852
Edge influence + Edge density 42.403 -76.806 1.967 5.279 Edge influence + Pathways 41.993 -75.986 2.787 6.099
Combined Slope + PC 2 -80.117 0 1.968
Orientation + PC 2 -79.073 1.044 3.012
60
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null 60.408 -116.82 6.37
H1
Fruits 61.127 -116.25 0 6.94
Coleoptera 60.804 -115.68 0.57 7.51
Invertebrates 60.663 -115.33 0.92 7.86
Mus 60.614 -115.23 1.02 7.96
Fruits + Mus 61.395 -114.79 1.46 8.4
Fruits + Coleoptera 61.339 -114.68 1.57 8.51
Fruits + Invertebrates 61.274 -114.55 1.7 8.64
Mus + Coleoptera 60.951 -113.9 2.35 9.29
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 60.934 -113.87 2.38 9.32
Mus + Invertebrates 60.776 -113.55 2.7 9.64
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera 61.552 -113.04 3.21 10.15
Fruits + Mus + Invertebrates 61.46 -112.92 3.33 10.27
Fruits + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 61.404 -112.81 3.44 10.38
Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 61.01 -112.02 4.23 11.17
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 61.55 -111.1 5.15 12.09 H2
D_1_water 62.278 -118.56 0 4.63
D_1_water + D_2_water 62.283 -116.57 1.99 6.62
D_2_water 60.408 -114.82 3.74 8.37
H3
Accessibility 62.595 -119.19 0 4
Dists 63.274 -114.55 4.64 8.64
Accessibility + Dists 63.652 -113.3 5.89 9.89
H4 Slope 60.483 -114.97 0 8.22
Appendix 8.12 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the common genet for the general dataset. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
61
Orientation 61.99 -113.98 0.99 9.21
Slope + Orientation 62.388 -112.78 2.19 10.41
H5
% Rock 61.081 -116.16 0 7.03
% Arboreal 60.945 -115.89 0.27 7.3
Shrub_height 60.811 -115.62 0.54 7.57
% Shrub 60.75 -115.5 0.66 7.69
% Rock + Shrub_height 61.542 -115.08 1.08 8.11
% % Herbaceous 60.512 -115.02 1.14 8.17
% Rock + % Arboreal 61.423 -114.85 1.31 8.34
% Rock + % Herbaceous 61.394 -114.79 1.37 8.4
% Rock + % Shrub 61.237 -114.47 1.69 8.72
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 61.211 -114.42 1.74 8.77
% Arboreal + % Shrub 61.159 -114.32 1.84 8.87
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 61.08 -114.16 2 9.03
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 60.921 -113.84 2.32 9.35
% Shrub + Shrub_height 60.91 -113.82 2.34 9.37
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 60.894 -113.79 2.37 9.4
% Rock + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 61.822 -113.64 2.52 9.55
% Rock + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 61.758 -113.52 2.64 9.67
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal 61.742 -113.48 2.68 9.71
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Shrub 61.593 -113.19 2.97 10
% Rock + % Shrub + Shrub_height 61.544 -113.09 3.07 10.1
% Rock + % Arboreal + % Shrub 61.525 -113.05 3.11 10.14
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 61.349 -112.7 3.46 10.49
% Arboreal + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 61.321 -112.64 3.52 10.55
% Shrub + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 61.272 -112.54 3.62 10.65
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 62.048 -112.1 4.06 11.09
% Herbaceous + % Shrub + Shrub_height 61.037 -112.07 4.09 11.12
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 61.879 -111.76 4.4 11.43
% Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock + % Herbaceous 61.836 -111.67 4.49 11.52
62
% Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock 61.759 -111.52 4.64 11.67
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height 61.423 -110.85 5.31 12.34
H6
PC 3 64.597 -123.19 0 0
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 65.019 -122.04 1.15 1.15
PC 2 + PC 3 64.845 -121.69 1.5 1.5
PC 3 + PC 4 64.708 -121.42 1.77 1.77
PC 1 + PC 3 64.674 -121.35 1.84 1.84
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 65.28 -120.56 2.63 2.63 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 + PC 4 65.146 -120.29 2.9 2.9 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 3 65.041 -120.08 3.11 3.11
PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 64.957 -119.91 3.28 3.28
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 64.923 -119.85 3.34 3.34
PC 1 + PC 3 + PC 4 64.785 -119.57 3.62 3.62
PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 65.412 -118.82 4.37 4.37 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 65.281 -118.56 4.63 4.63 PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase 65.165 -118.33 4.86 4.86
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 65.036 -118.07 5.12 5.12
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 61.785 -117.57 5.62 5.62
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 62.198 -116.4 6.79 6.79
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 61.901 -115.8 7.39 7.39
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 61.849 -115.7 7.49 7.49
PC 2 60.604 -115.21 7.98 7.98
PC 4 60.496 -114.99 8.2 8.2
PC 1 60.469 -114.94 8.25 8.25
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 62.356 -114.71 8.48 8.48 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 4 62.321 -114.64 8.55 8.55 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 4 61.968 -113.94 9.25 9.25
PC 2 + PC 4 60.693 -113.39 9.8 9.8
PC 1 + PC 2 60.666 -113.33 9.86 9.86
PC 1 + PC 4 60.557 -113.11 10.08 10.08
63 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 62.486 -112.97 10.22 10.22
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 60.755 -111.51 11.68 11.68
H7
Pathways 60.442 -114.88 0 8.31
Edge influence 60.434 -114.87 0.01 8.32
Edge density 60.43 -114.86 0.02 8.33
Edge influence + Pathways 60.487 -112.97 1.91 10.22
Pathways + Edge density 60.472 -112.94 1.94 10.25
Edge influence + Edge density 60.449 -112.9 1.98 10.29
Area of influence + Pathways + Edge density 60.507 -111.01 3.87 12.18
Combined D_1_water + Accessibility + PC 3 -122.71 0.48
64
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -47.902 11.701
H1
Mus + Coleoptera 28.317 -48.633 0 10.97
Coleoptera 27.153 -48.306 0.327 11.297
Fruits 26.297 -46.594 2.039 13.009
Fruits + Coleoptera 27.194 -46.388 2.245 13.215 Coleoptera + Invertebrates 27.179 -46.357 2.276 13.246
Invertebrates 26.065 -46.129 2.504 13.474
Mus 25.959 -45.919 2.714 13.684
Fruits + Invertebrates 26.321 -44.643 3.99 14.96
Fruits + Mus 26.319 -44.638 3.995 14.965
Mus + Invertebrates 26.075 -44.15 4.483 15.453 H2
D_1_water 28.622 -51.244 0 8.359
D_1_water + D_2_water 28.68 -49.361 1.883 10.242
D_2_water 25.959 -45.918 5.326 13.685
H3
Accessibility 32.393 -58.787 0 0.816
Accessibility + Dists 34.364 -56.727 2.06 2.876
Dists 30.528 -51.056 7.731 8.547
H4
Slope 26.185 -46.39 0 13.213
Orientation 27.12 -44.239 2.151 15.364
Slope + Orientation 27.646 -43.292 3.098 16.311
H5
Shrub_height 26.065 -46.13 0 13.473
% Arboreal 25.976 -45.952 0.178 13.651
% Shrub 25.956 -45.913 0.217 13.69
% Herbaceous 25.956 -45.911 0.219 13.692
% Shrub + Shrub_height 26.118 -44.236 1.894 15.367
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 26.099 -44.198 1.932 15.405
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 26.087 -44.173 1.957 15.43
% Arboreal + % Shrub 25.995 -43.989 2.141 15.614
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 25.977 -43.954 2.176 15.649
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 25.964 -43.928 2.202 15.675
H6
PC 2 27.870 -49.74 0 9.863
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 28.454 -48.908 0.832 10.695
PC 1 + PC 2 28.344 -48.689 1.051 10.914
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 26.956 -47.912 1.828 11.691
PC 2 + PC 3 27.934 -47.868 1.872 11.735
PC 2 + PC 4 27.907 -47.815 1.925 11.788
PC 1 26.333 -46.665 3.075 12.938
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 27.133 -46.267 3.473 13.336 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 27.005 -46.01 3.73 13.593
Appendix 8.13 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the common genet for the Caniceira farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
65
PC 3 26.003 -46.006 3.734 13.597
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 26.995 -45.99 3.75 13.613
PC 4 25.981 -45.963 3.777 13.64
PC 1 + PC 3 26.387 -44.774 4.966 14.829
PC 1 + PC 4 26.364 -44.729 5.011 14.874
PC 3 + PC 4 26.034 -44.067 5.673 15.536
H7
Pathways 26.104 -46.208 0 13.395
Edge influence 26 -46.001 0.207 13.602
Edge density 25.955 -45.909 0.299 13.694
Edge influence + Pathways 26.122 -44.244 1.964 15.359 Pathways + Edge density 26.104 -44.209 1.999 15.394 Edge influence + Edge density 26 -44.001 2.201 15.602 Combined
Accessibility + PC 2 33.801 -59.603 0 0
D_1_water + Accessibility 32.731 -57.463 2.14 2.14
D_1_water + PC 2 30.002 -52.004 7.599 7.599
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -75.357 9.6
H1
Fruits 40.592 -75.185 0 9.772
Invertebrates 39.78 -73.561 1.624 11.396
Coleoptera 39.744 -73.489 1.696 11.468
Mus 39.68 -73.359 1.826 11.598
Fruits + Mus 40.615 -73.23 1.955 11.727
Fruits + Coleoptera 40.608 -73.215 1.97 11.742 Fruits + Invertebrates 40.6 -73.2 1.985 11.757 Coleoptera + Invertebrates 39.782 -71.565 3.62 13.392 Mus + Invertebrates 39.78 -71.561 3.624 13.396
Mus + Coleoptera 39.757 -71.514 3.671 13.443
H2
D_2_water 39.925 -73.85 0 11.107
D_1_water 39.789 -73.578 0.272 11.379
D_1_water + D_2_water 39.978 -71.957 1.893 13 H3
Accessibility 40.188 -74.375 0 10.582
Dists 41.675 -73.351 1.024 11.606
Accessibility + Dists 41.733 -71.466 2.909 13.491 H4
Slope 40.111 -74.222 0 10.735
Orientation 40.011 -70.022 4.2 14.935
Slope + Orientation 10.572 -69.143 5.079 15.814
H5 % Rock + % Herbaceous 46.021 -84.043 0 0.914
% Rock 44.932 -83.846 0.197 1.111
Appendix 8.14 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the common genet for the Zambujo farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
66
% Rock + % Shrub 45.32 -82.639 1.404 2.318
% Rock + % Arboreal 44.979 -81.958 2.085 2.999
% Rock + Shrub_height 44.924 -81.847 2.196 3.11
% Arboreal 40.842 -75.684 8.359 9.273
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 41.293 -74.587 9.456 10.37
% Shrub 40.206 -74.412 9.631 10.545
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 71.13 -74.326 9.717 10.631
% Arboreal + % Shrub 40.904 -73.808 10.235 11.149
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 40.856 -73.711 10.332 11.246
% Herbaceous 39.823 -73.646 10.397 11.311
Shrub_height 39.794 -73.588 10.455 11.369
% Shrub + Shrub_height 40.241 -72.483 11.56 12.474
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 40.081 -72.161 11.882 12.796
H6
PC 3 45.478 -84.957 0 0
PC 1 + PC 3 45.835 -83.67 1.287 1.287
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 45.636 -83.272 1.685 1.685
PC 2 + PC 3 45.561 -83.121 1.836 1.836
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 39.931 -73.862 11.095 11.095
PC 1 39.864 -73.728 11.229 11.229
PC 2 39.721 -73.443 11.514 11.514
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 39.972 -71.944 13.013 13.013 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 39.932 -71.865 13.092 13.092
PC 1 + PC 2 39.908 -71.815 13.142 13.142
H7
Edge influence 40.428 -74.857 0 10.1
Edge density 39.975 -73.949 0.908 11.008
Pathways 39.833 -73.665 1.192 11.292
Edge influence + Edge density 40.625 -73.251 1.606 11.706 Edge influence + Pathways 40.469 -72.938 1.919 12.019 Pathways + Edge density 40.088 -72.176 2.681 12.781
67
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -160.59 3.59
H1
Coleoptera 82.88 -159.76 0 4.42
Mus 82.866 -159.73 0.03 4.45
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 83.669 -159.34 0.42 4.84
Invertebrates 82.611 -159.22 0.54 4.96
Mus + Invertebrates 83.508 -159.02 0.74 5.16
Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 84.388 -158.78 0.98 5.4
Fruits 82.248 -158.7 1.06 5.48
Mus + Coleoptera 83.27 -158.54 1.22 5.64
Fruits + Coleoptera 83.088 -158.18 1.58 6
Fruits + Mus 82.902 -157.8 1.96 6.38
Fruits + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 83.826 -157.65 2.11 6.53
Fruits + Invertebrates 82.633 -157.27 2.49 6.91
Fruits + Mus + Invertebrates 83.51 -157.02 2.74 7.16
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 84.47 -156.94 2.82 7.24
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera 83.419 -156.84 2.92 7.34
H2
D_2_water 83.65 -161.3 0 2.88
D_1_water + D_2_water 83.812 -159.62 1.68 4.56
D_1_water 82.505 -159.01 2.29 5.17
H3
Accessibility 82.442 -158.88 0 5.3
Dists 82.792 -153.58 5.3 10.6
Accessibility + Dists 82.799 -151.6 7.28 12.58
Appendix 8.15 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the stone marten for the general dataset. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
68 H4
Slope + Orientation 87.795 -163.59 0 0.59
Orientation 84.905 -159.81 3.78 4.37
Slope 82.881 -159.76 3.83 4.42
H5
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 86.088 -164.18 0 0
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal 86.475 -162.95 1.23 1.23
% Arboreal 84.296 -162.59 1.59 1.59
% Arboreal + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 86.149 -162.3 1.88 1.88
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 86.095 -162.19 1.99 1.99
% % Herbaceous 83.697 -161.39 2.79 2.79
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 86.519 -161.04 3.14 3.14
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 86.476 -160.95 3.23 3.23
% Rock + % Herbaceous 84.466 -160.93 3.25 3.25
% Rock + % Arboreal 84.356 -160.71 3.47 3.47
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 84.315 -160.63 3.55 3.55
% Arboreal + % Shrub 84.305 -160.61 3.57 3.57
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height 86.206 -160.41 3.77 3.77
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 83.819 -159.64 4.54 4.54
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 83.7 -159.4 4.78 4.78
% Rock 82.558 -159.12 5.06 5.06
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Shrub 84.491 -158.98 5.2 5.2
% Rock + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 84.472 -158.94 5.24 5.24
% Rock + % Arboreal + % Shrub 84.38 -158.76 5.42 5.42
% Rock + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 84.37 -158.74 5.44 5.44
% Shrub 82.322 -158.64 5.54 5.54
% Shrub + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 84.316 -158.63 5.55 5.55
Shrub_height 82.31 -158.62 5.56 5.56
% Herbaceous + % Shrub + Shrub_height 83.84 -157.68 6.5 6.5
% Rock + Shrub_height 82.579 -157.16 7.02 7.02
% Rock + % Shrub 82.559 -157.12 7.06 7.06
% Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock + % Herbaceous 84.491 -156.98 7.2 7.2
69
% Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock 84.382 -156.76 7.42 7.42
% Shrub + Shrub_height 82.325 -156.65 7.53 7.53
% Rock + % Shrub + Shrub_height 82.581 -155.16 9.02 9.02
H6
PC 2 82.755 -159.51 0 4.67
PC 1 82.398 -158.8 0.71 5.38
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 82.371 -158.74 0.77 5.44
PC 4 82.356 -158.71 0.8 5.47
PC 3 82.317 -158.63 0.88 5.55
PC 1 + PC 2 82.862 -157.72 1.79 6.46
PC 2 + PC 4 82.819 -157.64 1.87 6.54
PC 2 + PC 3 82.779 -157.56 1.95 6.62
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 82.77 -157.54 1.97 6.64
PC 1 + PC 4 82.46 -156.92 2.59 7.26
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 82.438 -156.88 2.63 7.3
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 82.435 -156.87 2.64 7.31
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 82.434 -156.87 2.64 7.31
PC 1 + PC 3 82.421 -156.84 2.67 7.34
PC 3 + PC 4 82.379 -156.76 2.75 7.42
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 82.927 -155.85 3.66 8.33
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 82.926 -155.85 6.33 8.33
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 82.885 -155.77 3.74 8.41
PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 82.843 -155.69 3.82 8.49
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 4 82.832 -155.66 3.85 8.52 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 3 82.783 -155.57 3.94 8.61 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 4 82.502 -155 4.51 9.18
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 + PC 4 82.5 -155 4.51 9.18
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 82.486 -154.97 4.54 9.21
PC 1 + PC 3 + PC 4 82.483 -154.97 4.54 9.21
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 82.987 -153.97 5.54 10.21
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 82.95 -153.9 5.61 10.28
70 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 82.93 -153.86 5.65 10.32
PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase 82.846 -153.69 5.82 10.49 PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 82.553 -153.11 6.4 11.07
H7
Edge influence 82.39 -158.78 0 5.4
Pathways 82.305 -158.61 0.17 5.57
Edge density 82.295 -158.59 0.19 5.59
Edge influence + Pathways 82.425 -156.85 1.93 7.33
Edge influence + Edge density 82.4 -156.8 1.98 7.38
Pathways + Edge density 82.306 -156.61 2.17 7.57
Area of influence + Pathways + Edge density 82.432 -154.86 3.92 9.32
71
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -70.166 2.029
H1
Mus 38.053 -70.106 0 2.089
Coleoptera 37.574 -69.147 0.959 3.048
Invertebrates 37.512 -69.024 1.082 3.171
Mus + Invertebrates 38.489 -68.979 1.127 3.216 Coleoptera + Invertebrates 38.254 -68.491 1.615 3.704
Fruits + Mus 38.101 -68.202 1.904 3.993
Fruits 37.097 -68.194 1.912 4.001
Mus + Coleoptera 38.053 -68.106 2 4.089
Fruits + Invertebrates 37.64 -67.28 2.826 4.915 Fruits + Coleoptera 37.601 -67.202 2.904 4.993 H2
D_2_water 38.083 -70.713 0 1.482
D_1_water + D_2_water 38.635 -69.27 1.443 2.925
D_1_water 37.155 -68.311 2.402 3.884
H3
Accessibility 37.459 -69.919 0 2.276
Dists 37.756 -65.512 4.407 6.683
Accessibility + Dists 37.764 -63.528 6.319 8.667 H4
Slope + Orientation 40.555 -69.109 0 3.086
Slope 37.475 -68.95 0.159 3.245
Orientation 38.332 -66.664 2.445 5.531
H5
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 40.457 -72.195 0 0
% Herbaceous 38.289 -70.579 1.616 1.616
% Arboreal 38.248 -70.496 1.699 1.699
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 38.533 -69.066 3.129 3.129
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 38.452 -68.903 3.292 3.292
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 38.301 -68.603 3.592 3.592
% Arboreal + % Shrub 38.295 -68.59 3.605 3.605
Shrub_height 37.199 -68.397 3.798 3.798
% Shrub 37.116 -68.231 3.964 3.964
% Shrub + Shrub_height 37.552 -67.105 5.09 5.09
H6
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 37.528 -69.056 0 3.139
PC 3 37.466 -68.931 0.125 3.264
PC 4 37.422 -68.844 0.212 3.351
PC 2 37.388 -68.776 0.28 3.419
PC 1 37.281 -68.561 0.495 3.634
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 38.120 -68.239 0.817 3.956 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 38.105 -68.211 0.845 3.984
PC 3 + PC 4 37.820 -67.639 1.417 4.556
PC 2 + PC 3 37.784 -67.569 1.487 4.626
Appendix 8.16 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the stone marten for the Caniceira farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
72
PC 2 + PC 4 37.739 -67.478 1.578 4.717
PC 1 + PC 3 37.672 -67.344 1.712 4.851
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 37.669 -67.339 1.717 4.856
PC 1 + PC 4 37.627 -67.255 1.801 4.94
PC 1 + PC 2 37.593 -67.186 1.87 5.009
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 37.554 -67.109 1.947 5.086
H7
Edge influence 37.15 -68.3 0 3.895
Pathways 37.113 -68.225 0.075 3.97
Edge density 37.09 -68.179 0.121 4.016
Edge influence + Pathways 37.208 -66.417 1.883 5.778 Edge influence + Edge density 37.17 -66.34 1.96 5.855 Pathways + Edge density 37.117 -66.233 2.067 5.962 Combined
Slope + % Herbaceous 38.949 -69.9 0 2.295
Slope + % Arboreal 38.342 -68.68 1.22 3.515
Orientation + % Arboreal 39.637 -67.27 2.63 4.925 Orientation + % Herbaceous 39.289 -66.58 3.32 5.615
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -94.69 9.52
H1
Fruits 49.922 -93.845 0 10.365
Fruits + Mus 49.557 -93.332 0.513 10.878
Invertebrates 49.451 -93.115 0.73 11.095
Mus 50.443 -92.902 0.943 11.308
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 49.347 -92.887 0.958 11.323
Coleoptera 50.166 -92.694 1.151 11.516
Fruits + Invertebrates 50.005 -92.01 1.835 12.2 Fruits + Coleoptera 49.949 -91.898 1.947 12.312 Mus + Invertebrates 49.693 -91.386 2.459 12.824
Mus + Coleoptera 49.472 -90.944 2.901 13.266
H2
D_1_water 49.445 -92.891 0 11.319
D_2_water 49.346 -92.692 0.199 11.518
D_1_water + D_2_water 49.457 -90.913 1.978 13.297 H3
Accessibility 49.558 -93.116 0 11.094
Dists 49.655 -89.31 3.806 14.9
Accessibility + Dists 49.671 -87.341 5.775 16.869 H4
Slope + Orientation 58.105 -104.21 0 0
Slope 51.764 -97.529 6.681 6.681
Orientation 52.06 -94.12 10.09 10.09
H5 % Rock + Shrub_height 53.093 -98.187 0 6.023
Appendix 8.17 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the stone marten for the Zambujo farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
73
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 52.465 -96.93 1.257 7.28
% Rock 50.998 -95.996 2.191 8.214
% Rock + % Herbaceous 51.573 -95.145 3.042 9.065
Shrub_height 50.482 -94.963 3.224 9.247
% Rock + % Shrub 51.273 -94.546 3.641 9.664
% Rock + % Arboreal 50.999 -93.999 4.188 10.211
% Arboreal 49.853 -93.706 4.484 10.504
% Shrub + Shrub_height 50.807 -93.614 4.573 10.596
% % Herbaceous 49.543 -93.086 5.101 11.124
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 50.491 -92.982 5.205 11.228
% Shrub 49.426 -92.853 5.334 11.357
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 50.171 -92.342 5.845 11.868
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 50.013 -92.026 6.161 12.184
% Arboreal + % Shrub 49.858 -91.716 6.471 12.494
H6
PC 2 51.432 -96.864 0 7.346
PC 2 + PC 3 52.055 -96.109 0.755 8.101
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 51.727 -95.455 1.409 8.755
PC 1 + PC 2 51.561 -95.121 1.743 9.089
PC3 49.835 -93.67 3.194 10.54
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 49.598 -93.197 3.667 11.013
PC 1 49.447 -92.894 3.97 11.316
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 50.191 -92.381 4.483 11.829
PC 1 + PC 3 49.943 -91.885 4.979 12.325
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 49.681 -91.362 5.502 12.848
H7
Edge influence 49.413 -92.826 0 11.384
Pathways 49.356 -92.712 0.114 11.498
Edge density 49.356 -92.712 0.114 11.498
Edge influence + Pathways 49.418 -90.83 1.996 13.38 Edge influence + Edge density 49.415 -90.835 1.991 13.375 Pathways + Edge density 49.365 -90.729 2.097 13.481
Combined
Shrub_height + Slope 54.707 -101.41 0 2.8
% Rock + PC 2 53.676 -99.351 2.059 4.859
Slope + PC 2 52.834 -97.668 3.742 6.542
% Rock + Orientation 54.599 -97.199 4.211 7.011 Shrub_height + PC 2 52.491 -96.982 4.428 7.228
% Rock + Slope 52.258 -96.516 4.894 7.694
Orientation + PC 2 52.799 -93.598 7.812 10.612 Shrub_height + Orientation 52.362 -92.723 8.687 11.487
74
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -151.51 2.47
H1
Fruits 78.511 -151.02 0 2.96
Invertebrates 77,959 -149.92 1.1 4.06
Fruits + Invertebrates 78,885 -149.77 1.25 4.21
Mus 77,879 -149.76 1.26 4.22
Coleoptera 77,824 -149.65 1.37 4.33
Fruits + Mus 78,687 -149.37 1.65 4.61
Fruits + Coleoptera 78,513 -149.03 1.99 4.95
Fruits + Mus + Invertebrates 79,264 -148.53 2.49 5.45
Mus + Invertebrates 78,202 -148.4 2.62 5.58
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 78,158 -148.32 2.7 5.66
Fruits + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 78,945 -147.89 3.13 6.09
Mus + Coleoptera 77,92 -147.84 3.18 6.14
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera 78,689 -147.38 3.64 6.6
Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 78,355 -146.71 4.31 7.27
Fruits + Mus + Coleoptera + Invertebrates 79,288 -146.58 4.4 7.4 H2
D_1_water 79,907 -153.81 0 0.17
D_1_water + D_2_water 80,848 -153.7 0.11 0.28
D_2_water 78,422 -150.84 2.97 3.14
H3
Accessibility 78,82 -151.64 0 2.34
Dists 79,561 -147.12 4.52 6.86
Accessibility + Dists 79,883 -145.77 5.87 8.21
H4 Slope 77,883 -149.77 0 4.21
Appendix 8.18 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the European badger for the general dataset. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).
75
Orientation 78,927 -147.85 1.92 6.13
Slope + Orientation 79,325 -146.65 3.12 7.33
H5
% Shrub 78,338 -150.68 0 3.3
Shrub_height 78.273 -150.55 0.13 3.43
% Rock 78.144 -150.29 0.39 3.69
% Arboreal 78.003 -150.01 0.67 3.97
% Herbaceous 77.997 -149.99 0.69 3.99
% Rock + Shrub_height 78.712 -149.42 1.26 4.56
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 78.574 -149.15 1.53 4.83
% Rock + % Shrub 78.542 -149.08 1.6 4.9
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 78.497 -148.99 1.69 4.99
% Shrub + Shrub_height 78.475 -148.99 1.69 4.99
% Arboreal + % Shrub 78.475 -148.95 1.73 5.03
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 78.417 -148.83 1.85 5.15
% Rock + % Arboreal 78.291 -148.58 2.1 5.4
% Rock + % Herbaceous 78.267 -148.53 2.15 5.45
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 78.226 -148.45 2.23 5.53
% Rock + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 78.87 -147.74 2.94 6.24
% Rock + % Shrub + Shrub_height 78.791 -147.58 3.1 6.4
% Rock + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 78.771 -147.54 3.14 6.44
% Herbaceous + % Shrub + Shrub_height 78.714 -147.43 3.25 6.55
% Arboreal + % Herbaceous + Shrub_height 78.694 -147.39 3.29 6.59
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Shrub 78.634 -147.27 3.41 6.71
% Rock + % Arboreal + % Shrub 78.631 -147.26 3.42 6.72
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 78.626 -147.25 3.43 6.73
% Shrub + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 78.606 -147.21 3.47 6.77
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal 78.414 -146.83 3.85 7.15
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + Shrub_height 78.928 -145.86 4.82 8.12
% Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock + % Herbaceous 78.925 -145.85 4.83 8.13
% Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height + % Rock 78.844 -145.69 4.99 8.29
76
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub + Shrub_height 78.811 -145.62 5.06 8.36
% Rock + % Herbaceous + % Arboreal + % Shrub 78.726 -145.45 5.23 8.53
H6
PC 3 79.945 -153.89 0 0.09
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 80.573 -153.15 0.74 0.83
PC 1 + PC 3 80.537 -153.07 0.82 0.91
PC 3 + PC 4 80.306 -152.61 1.28 1.37
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 79.132 -152.26 1.63 1.72
PC 2 + PC 3 79.956 -151.91 1.98 2.07
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 3 + PC 4 80.919 -151.84 2.05 2.14
PC 1 + PC 3 + PC 4 80.91 -151.82 2.07 2.16
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 80.884 -151.77 2.12 2.21 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 3 80.777 -151.55 2.34 2.43
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 79.604 -151.21 2.68 2.77
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 80.548 -151.1 2.79 2.88
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 4 79.439 -150.88 3.01 3.1
PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 80.317 -150.63 3.26 3.35
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 79.301 -150.6 3.29 3.38
PC 1 78.276 -150.55 3.34 3.43
PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 3 81.242 -150.48 3.41 3.5 PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 + Eucalyptus_growth_phase 81.116 -150.23 3.66 3.75
PC 4 78.073 -150.15 3.74 3.83
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 80.993 -149.99 3.9 3.99
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 3 + PC 4 80.921 -149.84 4.05 4.14
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 + PC 4 79.905 -149.81 4.08 4.17
PC 2 77.763 -149.53 4.36 4.45
Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 79.681 -149.36 4.53 4.62 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 4 79.615 -149.23 4.66 4.75
PC 1 + PC 4 78.605 -149.21 4.68 4.77
PC 1 + PC 2 78.286 -148.57 5.32 5.41
PC 2 + PC 4 78.082 -148.16 5.73 5.82
77 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 79.988 -147.98 5.91 6
PC 1 + PC 2 + PC 4 78.615 -147.23 6.66 6.75
H7
Edge influence 77.98 -149.96 0 4.02
Pathways 77.952 -149.9 0.06 4.08
Edge density 77.823 -149.65 0.31 4.33
Edge influence + Pathways 78.312 -148.64 1.32 5.34
Edge influence + Edge density 78.053 -148.03 1.93 5.95
Pathways + Edge density 78.013 -148.11 1.85 5.87
Area of influence + Pathways + Density 78.368 -146.74 3.22 7.24
Combined D_1_water + PC3 -153.98 0 0
78
Hypothesis Model logLik AICc ΔAICc Overall
ΔAICc
Null -69.362 0.575
H1
Coleoptera 37.377 -68.754 0 1.183
Mus 36.867 -67.735 1.019 2.202
Invertebrates 36.783 -67.566 1.188 2.371
Fruits 36.715 -67.43 1.324 2.507
Fruits + Coleoptera 37.7 -67.399 1.355 2.538
Mus + Coleoptera 37.437 -66.874 1.88 3.063
Coleoptera + Invertebrates 37.411 -66.821 1.933 3.116
Mus + Invertebrates 36.98 -65.961 2.793 3.976
Fruits + Mus 36.889 -65.778 2.976 4.159
Fruits + Invertebrates 36.878 -65.756 2.998 4.181 H2
D_1_water 37.968 -69.937 0 0
D_1_water + D_2_water 38.412 -68.824 1.113 1.113
D_2_water 37.366 -68.733 1.204 1.204
H3
Accessibility 37.139 -68.278 0 1.659
Accessibility + Dists 38.277 -64.554 3.724 5.383
Dists 36.814 -63.628 4.65 6.309
H4
Slope 36.746 -67.492 0 2.445
Orientation 37.864 -65.729 1.763 4.208
Slope + Orientation 37.991 -63.982 3.51 5.955
H5
Shrub_height 36.843 -67.686 0 2.251
% Shrub 36.843 -67.685 0.001 2.252
% Arboreal 36.852 -67.651 0.035 2.286
% % Herbaceous 36.815 -67.631 0.055 2.306
% Arboreal + Shrub_height 36.968 -65.936 1.75 4.001
% Herbaceous + Shrub_height 36.925 -65.85 1.836 4.087
% Herbaceous + % Shrub 36.92 -65.839 1.847 4.098
% Herbaceous + % Arboreal 36.913 -65.825 1.861 4.112
% Arboreal + % Shrub 36.908 -65.816 1.87 4.121
% Shrub + Shrub_height 36.872 -65.744 1.942 4.193
H6
PC 2 37.909 -69.818 0 0.119
PC 1 + PC 2 38.584 -69.167 0.651 0.77
PC 1 37.267 -68.533 1.285 1.404
Eucalyptus_growth_phase 37.139 -68.277 1.541 1.66 Eucalyptus_growth_phase + PC 2 38.114 -68.228 1.59 1.709
PC 2 + PC 4 37.927 -67.854 1.964 2.083
PC 2 + PC 3 37.919 -67.837 1.981 2.1
PC 4 36.697 -67.394 2.424 2.543
Appendix 8.19 – All the models generated to analyse the effect of the selected variables on the European badger for the Caniceira farmstead. With correspondent log-likelihood (LogLik), Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc), variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value in each hypothesis (ΔAICc) and the variation between the AICc from each model and the lower AICc value of all models (Overall ΔAICc).