Number (mean ± 95% CI) of woody plants >1.5m tall per hectare.

Data for each habitat type, except thicket, were collected from our study site. For the thicket habitat, we used the estimate of woody plant density in Belsky (1990), hence the lack of 95% confidence intervals. (DOCX)</p

Generalized linear model outputs showing the significant differences in herbivore species richness and abundance across configurations in both the wet and dry seasons.

Generalized linear model outputs showing the significant differences in herbivore species richness and abundance across configurations in both the wet and dry seasons.</p

Proportional availability of different habitat types along our driving transects.

We found that artificial grasslands comprise ~10%, open canopy savanna comprise ~12%, semi-open canopy savanna comprise ~20%, woody savanna comprise ~15%, closed-canopy woody savanna comprise ~26%, and thicket comprise ~16%. The marginal differences in the proportional availability of the different habitats are unlikely to influence the observed patterns of configurations generated from our model (see main text). (DOCX)</p

The relationship between dung counts (i.e., herbivore habitat use) and woody plant cover.

(DOCX)</p

Species abundance (mean ± 95% CI) across configurations in the wet and dry seasons for each of the three feeding guilds.

Configurations are organized by increasing woody plant cover (see Figs 1 and 2). Tukey’s honest significant difference tests reveal significant differences in abundance among the different configurations, as denoted by the lowercase letters within the data space.</p

Generalized linear model outputs showing that configurations have significantly different herbivore species abundance for each feeding guild (i.e., browser, grazer, and mixed-feeder) in both the wet and dry seasons, respectively.

Generalized linear model outputs showing that configurations have significantly different herbivore species abundance for each feeding guild (i.e., browser, grazer, and mixed-feeder) in both the wet and dry seasons, respectively.</p

Dry season configurations.

Model-identified outputs from our clustering analysis reveal that our study savanna exists as a number of configurations during the dry season (D1–D6), which are defined as the assemblage of herbivores associated with different levels of woody plant cover. Panel (a) displays all configurations in the dry season, organized by increasing woody plant cover. Each bar in a radial plot represents the relative abundance of a given herbivore species scaled to its highest abundance across all configurations within the dry season (i.e., a full bar represents a given species’ peak abundance). Moreover, comparisons of relative abundance can only be made within a species. Browsing species include: giraffe, common duiker, nyala, and kudu. Grazing species include: white rhinoceros, blue wildebeest, plains zebra, warthog, and African buffalo. Mixed-feeders include: impala, African elephant, and steenbok. Panels (b) and (c) show herbivore species richness and abundance (both show mean ± 95% CI) across configurations. Tukey’s honest significant difference tests reveal significant differences in the metric of choice among the different configurations, as denoted by the lowercase letters within the data space. Panel (d) shows density estimates that represent the frequency of occurrence of each configuration along the woody cover gradient. The arrows denote the mean woody plant cover that characterized each configuration.</p

Habitat availability and patterns of configurations.

(DOCX)</p

List of mammalian herbivores species and their feeding guild association.

(DOCX)</p

Defining characteristics of each configuration.

We list the habitat type in which a given configuration has the highest frequency of occurrence.</p