Appendix B. Explanation of the density dependence calculations.

Explanation of the density dependence calculations

Appendix C. References for Appendices A and B.

References for Appendices A and B

Appendix A. Descriptions of species, data, and study systems.

Descriptions of species, data, and study systems

Basic features of the four habitat patch networks selected within the study region for scenario analysis (Fig. 1).

*<p>Connectivity was calculated by dividing the suitable area (sum of the area of all patches) by the total area of the network (delineation of the minimum convex polygon around all the network patches).</p

Map of <i>M. alcon</i> populations in the Drenthe-Friesland region, with the four selected habitat patch networks.

<p>Size of the symbol indicates the carrying capacity of the patch with closed circles used for occupied and open ones for empty habitat patches. Inset shows the map of the Netherlands with the study region delineated by the square.</p

Restoration cost from agricultural land determines the best placement of restored area.

<p>In Ballooërveld patch network, the ranking of <i>stepping stone</i> vs <i>habitat enlargement</i> management options depends on the relative restoration cost: if the same surface can be restored, viability is improved more by placing restored area as stepping stones (<i>stepping stone creation 4 </i><i>ha</i> scenario); but the doubled cost of restoration from agricultural land makes <i>habitat enlargement</i> the best management option under the equal cost allocation approach.</p

The four habitat patch networks differed in total area and quality of habitat patches.

<p>For each network the total area of the patches in each habitat quality category (low, moderate, average, fair and high) is shown.</p

Population occupancy over the simulated period (200 years) for each habitat patch network under the baseline scenario.

<p>Solid line: average number of occupied patches; dotted lines: 95% confidence limits for 1000 replications; dashed line: total number of patches in the system.</p

Specification of the management options tested.

<p>1 Rob van der Burg (Bosgroep-Zuid) and René Gerats (Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap, personal communication); <a href="http://www.groenblauwediensten.nl" target="_blank">www.groenblauwediensten.nl</a>.</p><p>2 WallisDeVries 2004 <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038684#pone.0038684-WallisDeVries2" target="_blank">[18]</a>.</p><p>3 Maes et al. 2004 <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038684#pone.0038684-Maes1" target="_blank">[15]</a>.</p><p>4 WallisDeVries unpublished data.</p

Assessment of <i>M. alcon</i> viability in the four habitat patch networks under the baseline and management scenarios

<p>. The quasi-extinction risk is a measure of viability quantifying the probability that (the system of) population(s) will fall below a threshold population size at least once during the simulation time period <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038684#pone.0038684-Akcakaya1" target="_blank">[36]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0038684#pone.0038684-Ginzburg1" target="_blank">[40]</a>. This risk is given here for the full range of population size thresholds, from a 0% to a 100% risk of falling below the threshold; for a given population size, a lower quasi-extinction risk means a higher viability. Habitat enlargement is the best management option in three patch networks (Ballooërveld, Drents-Friese Wold and Dwingeloo), and reintroduction is the best for Delleburen network.</p