GLM results for differences in lichen species richness between 86 unmanaged and 494 age-class forests.

<p>Significant differences are indicated by bold <i>p</i> values.</p

Main geographic and habitat characteristics of the three Biodiversity Exploratories.

<p>Main geographic and habitat characteristics of the three Biodiversity Exploratories.</p

Mean species richness of threatened lichens (+SE) per plot for each of the forest management types in the three study regions.

<p>Mean species richness of threatened lichens (+SE) per plot for each of the forest management types in the three study regions.</p

GLM results for differences in lichen species richness between 379 deciduous and 115 coniferous age-class forests.

<p>Significant differences are indicated by bold <i>p</i> values.</p

Number of study plots in which we assessed herbivory of canopy trees and saplings of European beech (<i>Fagus sylvatica</i>) and the number of plots included in models 1 to 3 (model 1: ‘managed-unmanaged comparison’, model 2: ‘Hainich-Dün’, model 3: ‘age-class comparison’; for details see material and methods).

<p>*harvesting leaves in the canopy was not allowed in this plot.</p><p>As in thickets and pole woods only a few seedlings occurred, in some plots seedling herbivory could not be assessed. Additional mean, minimum and maximum stand height is given. Please note that thickets in the Schwäbische Alb contain a few large trees resulting in a relatively high mean value.</p

Herbivory on beech in Germany

Herbivory on beech in German

Significant effects (↑positive, ↓negative) of covariates regarding all models (model 1 ‘managed-unmanaged comparison’; model 2 ‘Hainich-Dün’; model 3 ‘age-class comparison’.

<p>The number next to the arrows indicate respective model with significant results.</p

Herbivory of different damage types in different regions and forest types.

<p>Percentage of leaves damaged in the canopy and understory of European beech (<i>Fagus sylvatica</i>) in stands of different management intensity (canopy: N = 26,000 leaves, understorey: N = 7,760). For significance of differences see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#pone-0104876-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a> and Tables S1 to S3 in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#pone.0104876.s004" target="_blank">File S2</a>. Due to the design of the experiment, means were compared in two models (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#pone-0104876-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>), one including the region and omitting the selection cutting forests in Hainich-Dün (model 1, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#pone-0104876-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>), and one restricted to Hainich-Dün including the selection cutting forests (model 2, Table S1 in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#pone.0104876.s004" target="_blank">File S2</a>). Please see ‘<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#s2" target="_blank">Materials and Methods</a>’ for detailed explanations.</p

Herbivory of different damage types in the canopy and understory.

<p>Percentage of leaves damaged in the canopy and understory of European beech (<i>Fagus sylvatica</i>) separated by different damage types and occurrence of <i>Phyllaphis fagi</i> (canopy: N = 26,000 leaves, understorey: N = 7,760). The inset shows the average percentage of leaf area removed per tree (± standard error).</p

Significant results of all models (model 1 ‘managed-unmanaged-comparison’; model 2 ‘Hainich-Dün’; model 3 ‘age-class comparison’).

<p>Models which showed significant effects are indicated by subscripted numbers. Generalized linear mixed effects models fit by Laplace approximation (lmer) were applied followed by a post-hoc comparison using Tukey contrasts. Please note that model 3 includes only herbivory in the sun-exposed canopy. For details see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104876#pone.0104876.s004" target="_blank">File S2</a>.</p