Gomez-Catasus_et_al-Windfarms

The zip file incorporates: 1) the dataset (.csv); and 2) an explanation of the variables (.rtf

Niche breadth data

Niche breadth data on guanaco and sheep and explanatory variables, on 15 sectors on Torres del Paine National Par

Land use cover in each area type.

<p>Mean and standard error of land use cover in the predicted Little and Great Bustard exclusive use and coexistence areas for 2011 in Campo Real (A) and 2008 in Calatrava (B) (F: short term fallows, NV: natural vegetation encompassing long term fallows and low height scrubs; Arable: cereal fields and ploughed lands; LEG: leguminous crops; DWC: dry woody cultures).</p

Percentage of predicted presence area of Little and Great Bustards in Campo Real 2012 and Calatrava 2009 (corresponding with the evaluation datasets).

<p>Omission error rates (proportion of presence occurrence records of the evaluation dataset that fall in an area predicted as unsuitable for the species) and p-values of one-tailed binomial test for evaluating model performance and significance respectively are provided.</p

Breeding biology of the endangered Dupont’s Lark <i>Chersophilus duponti</i> in two separate Spanish shrub-steppes

<p><b>Capsule:</b> The Dupont’s Lark <i>Chersophilus duponti</i> in Iberia has relatively high breeding success in both core and fragmented habitats, so population declines are more likely to be the result of low juvenile or adult survival.</p> <p><b>Aims:</b> To measure important aspects of the reproductive biology of one of the most endangered and least known larks: the Dupont’s Lark <i>C. duponti</i>.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> We monitored 36 nests in 2 Spanish shrub-steppes, one holding one of the largest European populations (250 pairs) and one composed by fragmented habitat patches holding a smaller population (50 pairs).</p> <p><b>Results:</b> The breeding season went from late-March to early July. Overall mean (±sd) clutch size was 3.47 ± 0.56, and the number of fledglings per successful nest was 3.0 ± 1.15. Mean nestling period was short (8.2 days). Nests showed similar daily survival rate during the incubation period (0.9750 ± 0.0110) as during the nestling period (0.9545 ± 0.0168), with a mean breeding success of 50%. Predation was the main cause of complete nest failure (83.3% of failed nests in both localities).</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Breeding parameters did show no significant variation between populations. Breeding success in both sites was generally higher than recorded in previous studies of this and most other lark species, which suggests that breeding success does not compromise long-term viability of these populations. The decline of the studied populations should be explained by other causes, such as a general decrease in habitat quality, habitat loss or habitat fragmentation.</p

Probabilities of habitat suitability of coexistence and exclusive use areas.

<p>Mean and 95% confidence interval of probabilities of habitat suitability in coexistence and exclusive use areas for the Little (A) and Great Bustards (B) in Campo Real 2011 and Calatrava 2008. Student t tests were performed with the residuals of the polynomial regression although original probabilities are shown for the sake of interpretation. Probability means of coexistence areas are represented as triangles and probability means of exclusive use areas are represented as squares.</p

Coexistence maps of Little and Great Bustards.

<p>Maps of Little Bustard and Great Bustard coexistence for 2011 in Campo Real (A) and 2008 in Calatrava (B), showing also areas of exclusive use and areas in which both species were predicted to be absent. The scale bar is given in meters.</p

Probabilities of habitat suitability for the environmental predictors.

<p>Maxent response curves representing the probability of habitat suitability for each environmental predictor (percentage of land uses and Topographic position index at 250 m resolution, TPI250) for the study species in Campo Real (A–F) and Calatrava (G–L). Solid lines correspond to Little Bustard response curves while broken lines correspond to Great Bustard response curves.</p

Contribution percentages of each environmental predictor (percentage of each land use type, and Topographic position index at 250 m resolution) to each species and study site models yielded by MaxEnt.

<p>Models were built using Little and Great Bustard observations from 2011 for Campo Real and 2008 for Calatrava.</p

Favourability for the little bustard at present and in 2080.

<p>a) Present favourability according to the <i>space-included</i> model; b) future favourability in 2080 according to the <i>space-included</i> model and the GCM HADCM3; c) present favourability according to the <i>space-excluded</i> model; d) future favourability in 2080 according to the <i>space-excluded</i> model and the GCM HADCM3. Favourability ranges from zero (white cells) to one (black cells). Classification maps with high, medium and low favourability are represented in Figure A in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0149810#pone.0149810.s001" target="_blank">S1 Appendix</a>.</p