Correlations between native and weed species for values of species richness, cumulative cover and Shannon diversity.

<p>Correlations were calculated for (A) all the plots together and; (B) separating by land use. Only statistically significant interactions (p < 0.05) are detailed. Graphs are sorted following the gradient of anthropogenic disturbance: from heavily disturbed to undisturbed. Photos are illustrative only and do not represent sampled sites. Photo attributions (CC BY) from left to right: 1,2: Government of South Australia; 3,5: Greg Guerin; 4: Lawrie Conole c/o Atlas of Living Australia.</p

Map showing location of <i>Eucalyptus gracilis</i> maternal trees and planting sites.

<p>Maps show samples from the three populations in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. Insert maps show greater spatial information on sampled populations. Reciprocal transplant planting locations shown at each planting site by a cross (x).</p

Genetic variability of <i>Eucalyptus gracilis</i> populations at eight microsatellite markers, progeny array size and seedling establishment data.

<p><i>n</i>, number of samples.</p><p><i>AR</i>, rarefied allelic richness.</p><p><i>H</i>_E and <i>H</i>_O, unbiased expected and observed heterozygosity, respectively.</p><p><i>F</i>, fixation index.</p><p>standard deviations in parentheses.</p

General linear model comparisons of relationships between genetic predictors and establishment rate (%) of <i>Eucalyptus gracilis</i> progeny arrays.

<p>% DE, per cent deviance explained by model.</p><p><i>w</i>AIC, Akaike weight that shows the relative likelihood of model <i>i.</i></p><p>ΔAIC<i>_c</i>, indicator of differences between model AIC<i>_c</i> (a measure of model goodness-of-fit scaled to the number of parameters in the model) and minimum AIC<i>_c</i> in the model set.</p><p><i>k</i>, number of parameters in each model.</p><p><i>ß</i>, unstandardized regression slope with 5 and 95% bootstrapped percentiles in parentheses in models that were either the best fitting model or had ΔAIC<i>_c</i> <4.</p><p><i>t</i>_m, outcrossing rate.</p><p><i>t</i>_m–<i>t</i>_s, biparental inbreeding.</p><p><i>r</i>_p, correlated paternity.</p><p><i>k_n</i>, the number of full-sibships within progeny arrays scaled to progeny array size.</p><p>1, null model.</p

Mating system parameter estimates for <i>Eucalyptus gracilis</i> from each population.

<p><i>t</i>_m, outcrossing rate.</p><p><i>t</i>_m–<i>t</i>_s, biparental inbreeding.</p><p><i>r</i>_p, correlated paternity.</p><p><i>k_n</i>, the number of full-sibships within progeny arrays scaled to progeny array size.</p><p>standard deviations in parentheses.</p><p>95% confidence interval homogeneous subgroups indicated by ^‘a’ and ^‘b’.</p

Sample sizes and total numbers of species recorded within land-use classes.

<p>Sample sizes and total numbers of species recorded within land-use classes.</p

Percentages of recorded species in growth-form categories for (A) exotics; (B) natives.

<p>Growth-form codes are shown in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178681#pone.0178681.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p

(A) Species richness; (B) cumulative species cover; (C) Shannon diversity; found in all the plots (ALL), and distinguishing by land use: Urban residential (URB), cropping (CROP), grazing modified pastures (MP), other minimal uses (OMU), and native grasslands in conservation reserves (NAT).

<p>Species were classified according to their origin, natives (green bars) and weeds (orange bars). The values correspond to the mean value (and standard error) considering the plot as the unit of analysis.</p

Map of the study area.

<p><b>Dots represent grasslands surveyed in the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia</b>. Plots in grasslands associated within the following five different land-use classes were analysed following a gradient of disturbance: urban residential, cropping, grazing modified pastures, other minimal uses and native grasslands in conservation reserves.</p

Muir codes for plant growth-forms recorded in survey plots (Department of Housing and Urban Development 1997).

<p>Muir codes for plant growth-forms recorded in survey plots (Department of Housing and Urban Development 1997).</p