Temporal effects of cockle treatment on the density of the five most dominant species per study site.

<p>Densities are shown as mean ± SE for plots without (NC) and with (C) cockles during both experimental trials, i.e. during recruitment (May–June) and post-recruitment (October–November) in the cohesive sediments (left panel) and in the non-cohesive sediments (right panel).</p

Spatio-temporal effects of cockle treatment on physical sediment properties.

<p>Sediment median grain size, water content, and chloroplastic photopigment equivalent (CPE) concentration, shown as mean ± SE for plots without (NC) and with (C) cockles in the two contrasting sediments during both experimental trials, i.e. during recruitment (May–June) and post-recruitment (October–November).</p

Spatio-temporal effects of cockle treatment on biological sediment properties.

<p>Species richness, diversity, evenness and total density for the total community (A–D) and the less-mobile surface deposit feeders (LDSDF, E–H); shown as mean ± SE for plots without (NC) and with (C) cockles in the two contrasting sediments during both experimental trials, i.e. during recruitment (May–June) and post-recruitment (October–November). Note that presented densities are square root transformed.</p

Temporal variation in suspended sediment concentration (SSC) at both study sites in 2011.

<p>Black bars indicate the two experimental periods. SSC were retrieved from the public url: <a href="http://www.waterbase.nl" target="_blank">www.waterbase.nl</a>. SSC at Paulina (black lines) was calculated as the average value from recordings at Terneuzen, Vlissingen and Hansweert, whereas SSC at Viane (grey lines) was calculated as the average value from recordings at Zijpe and Wissenkerke; see Figure S1 in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065861#pone.0065861.s001" target="_blank">File S1</a> for indication of sampling locations. Solid lines indicate average concentrations, dashed lines the minimum and maximum concentration recorded at a sampling location.</p

Biomass standing stocks, time series.

<p>Colored bar show the intertidal (green) and subtidal (blue) realized biomass stock estimated from the different scenarios for the present extension of the basin. Broken-line bars on the years 1968 and 1983 include the area that was cut-off from the beginning of the Oesterdam works in 1979 (25 km² between 1968 and 1983 and 12 km² between 1983 and 1986). Empty bars on the years 2010 and 2100 show the result of the scenarios simulated removing the Delta Works.</p

Models of the 0.975<i>^th</i> quantile, response surfaces.

<p>Models of the maximal biomass, when extrapolated in the explanatory variable space, give a description of the species potential niche consistent with the Liebig's Law.</p

Median values of the explanatory variables on different year-scenarios.

<p>Circles represent the median values predicted for the available years-scenarios by the hydrodynamic model. Triangles represent the values predicted for the years 2010 and 2100 removing the Delta Works (NDW).</p

Models of the 0.975<i>^th</i> quantile, habitat suitability.

<p>Once extrapolated to realistic scenarios, the response surface shown in 3 are useful to produce clearly interpretable habitat suitability maps. In the figure we show as example the output for the 1968, 2010 and 2100 scenarios.</p

Complete distribution model <i>vs</i> Model of the maxima.

<p>Example for <i>C. edule</i>, year 2010. Map produced by sampling from the complete quantile distribution models (A) are able to represent the realistic scatter around (mainly below) the response surface shown in (B). To help the reader in appreciating the fine mosaic of points in (A) we restricted the map to a smaller portion of the basin and we used a logarithmic scale for plotting the estimated values.</p

Areas of the total, subtidal and intertidal surface for the different scenarios.

<p>Areas of the total, subtidal and intertidal surface for the different scenarios.</p