RDA ordination of six environmental variables in relation to woodpecker species in 42 habitat patches.

<p>Species are identified by abbreviated scientific names. Labels for species occurring in less than five patches have been omitted. Explanation of variable codes see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094218#pone-0094218-t001" target="_blank">Tables 1</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094218#pone-0094218-t002" target="_blank">2</a>.</p

Best models describing species richness and abundance of woodpeckers in woodland patches.

<p>For each model the number of parameters (k), variance explained by the model (r²), the Akaike information criterion score (AICc), the difference between the given model and the most parsimonious model (Δ AICc) and Akaike weight (<i>w</i>) are listed. CanOpenQ – quadratic term of canopy openness. For explanations of other variable codes: see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094218#pone-0094218-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p

Relationship between woodpecker abundance and (a) woodland patch area, (b) urbanization index, (c) canopy openness (percentage of white area on the canopy pictures) and (d) percentage share of deciduous trees.

<p>Relationship between woodpecker abundance and (a) woodland patch area, (b) urbanization index, (c) canopy openness (percentage of white area on the canopy pictures) and (d) percentage share of deciduous trees.</p

Estimation of each model detection probability (<i>p</i>), naive estimation of patch occupancy (ψ_r) and patch occupancy estimated after taking the imperfect detection into account (ψ_d).

<p>Models with constant detection probability fitted better than survey specific models in all species.</p

Best models describing patch occupancy of the woodpecker species in woodland patches.

<p>For each model the number of parameters (k), variance explained by the model (r²), the Akaike information criterion score (AICc), the difference between the given model and the most parsimonious model (Δ AICc) and Akaike weight (<i>w</i>) are listed. In each model the species detection probability was estimated. No models were built for <i>Picus canus</i> and <i>Dendrocopos medius</i> because they were present in only one and two forest patches, respectively. For explanations of variable codes: see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094218#pone-0094218-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p

Results of forward selection of environmental variables explaining patterns in woodpecker community structure in forest patches.

<p>The analysis was performed using Monte Carlo tests with 499 permutations. Variables are ordered according to their stepwise inclusion into the model. Significant effects are emboldened. For explanations of variable codes: see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094218#pone-0094218-t001" target="_blank">Tables 1</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0094218#pone-0094218-t002" target="_blank">2</a>.</p><p>* - Variables were not included in the stepwise procedure since they did not improve the fit of the model.</p

Map of the study area.

<p>Green polygons are woodland patches. Shaded area is the city of Poznań. For each woodland patch the number of woodpecker species and their abundance (in brackets) are given.</p

Pearson correlation coefficients between variables potentially influencing woodpecker species richness, abundance and patch occupancy.

<p>Significance values are given in parentheses. Statistically significant correlations are emboldened. Variable codes: Area – woodland patch area, ForCov – cover of forests within 2000 m from the patch boundary, CanOpen – tree canopy openness, Diagonal – mean diameter of trees, Deciduous – percentage of deciduous trees, Undergrowth – mean percentage shrub cover, DisCentr – distance to the city centre, Roads – density of roads within 500 m from the patch boundary, Settlement – percentage cover of human settlements within 500 m from the patch boundary, Urban – urbanization index.</p

Relationship between woodpecker species richness and (a) woodland patch area, (b) urbanization index and (c) canopy openness (percentage of white area on the canopy pictures).

<p>Relationship between woodpecker species richness and (a) woodland patch area, (b) urbanization index and (c) canopy openness (percentage of white area on the canopy pictures).</p

data_village_scale

data_village_scal