ecography ecog-03039 Ż., cushman, s. a., ecog-03039 kaszta, Ż., cushman, s. a., sillero-zubiri,...
Post on 06-Jul-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ecography ECOG-03039Kaszta, Ż., Cushman, S. A., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Wolff, E. and Marino, J. 2017. Where buffalo and cattle meet: modelling interspecific contact risk using cumulative resistant kernels. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.03039
Supplementary material
Appendix1Table A1. Data used in the study with the data source
Data Source
Vegetation N content and
biomass maps based on
RapidEye imagery
Ramoelo A, Skidmore AK, Cho M a., et al
(2012) Regional estimation of savanna grass
nitrogen using the red-edge band of the
spaceborne RapidEye sensor. Int J Appl Earth
Obs Geoinf 19:151–162
Vegetation N content and
biomass maps based on
WorldView-2 imagery
Ramoelo A, Cho M a., Mathieu R, et al (2015)
Monitoring grass nutrients and biomass as
indicators of rangeland quality and quantity
using random forest modelling and
WorldView-2 data. Int J Appl Earth Obs
Geoinf 43:43–54
Altitude data from Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) based
on SRTM 4.1
Jarvis A, Reuter HI, Nelson A, Guevara E
(2008) Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version
4, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture
(CIAT), Available at: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.
Land cover from WorldView-2
image classification
Kaszta Ż, Van De Kerchove R, Ramoelo A,
Cho MA, Madonsela S, Mathieu R, Wolff E
(submitted for publication) Seasonal separation
of African savanna components using
WorldView-2 imagery: a comparison of pixel-
and object-based approaches and selected
classification algorithms
Map of vegetation types based
on geological substrate and soil
Mucina L, Rutherford MC (2006) The
vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. Strelitzia, Cape Town
Table A2. Composition and buffalo movement costs for stray buffalo for each land cover class in communal areas during the wet season.
Land cover
class
Protected
areas (%)
Available in
communal
areas (%)
Used by
stray
buffalo (%)
Used to
available
ratio
Scenarios of maximum
cost
50 100 200
Bare soil 6.14 5.61 0.02 0.36 45 90 180
Crops 0 7.37 0.2 2.71 1 1 1
Grassland 18 28.60 0.03 0.10 50 100 200
Open
woodland 44.10 21.57 0.55 2.55 4 7 13
Forest 17.96 8.42 0.04 0.48 43 86 171
Thickets 2.93 8.56 0.09 1.05 32 64 128
Urban 0.04 16.08 0.02 0.12 50 99 198
Water 1.16 0.28 0 0 50 100 100
Water 100m
buffer 9.69 3.52 0.05 1.42 25 50 99
Table A3. Composition and buffalo movement costs for stray buffalo for each land cover class in communal areas during the dry season.
Land cover
class
Protected
areas (%)
Available in
communal
areas (%)
Used by
stray
buffalo (%)
Used to
available
ratio
Scenarios of maximum
cost
50 100 200
Bare soil 6.54 10.57 0.02 0.19 49 98 197
Crops 0 7.37 0.20 2.71 22 43 85
Grassland 8.5 26.91 0.03 0.11 50 100 200
Open
woodland 58.14 23.48 0.55 2.34 26 51 102
Forest 6.61 9.17 0.04 0.44 46 93 186
Thickets 10.93 5.21 0.09 1.73 32 65 129
Urban 0.04 16.08 0.02 0.12 50 100 199
Water 0.97 0.13 0 0 50 100 200
Water 100m
buffer
8.28 1.08 0.05 4.62 1 1 1
Table A4. Number of cattle herds per village and season in the study area from census data (data source: Mpumalanga Veterinary Services).
Village Cattle herds
Dry season 2012 Wet season 2013
Belfast 73 75
Huntington 80 81
Justicia 97 101
Lillydale 126 128
Somerset 79 79
Table A5. Coefficients of fixed effects from the best model predicting variations in habitat use intensity by buffaloes. The coefficients of vegetation classes are calculated in relation to class “granite”.
Predictor β SE 95 % confidence
interval
Intercept -19.58 0.24 -20.19 -18.97
Biomass -0.21 0.03 -0.26 -0.15
N 0.30 0.03 0.24 0.36
N2 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04
Distance to water -0.09 0.02 -0.12 -0.05
Altitude 0.27 0.03 0.22 0.33
Altitude2 -0.06 0.01 -0.08 -0.04
Delagoa Lowveld 0.32 0.12 0.09 0.55
Tshokwane-Hlane
Basalt Lowvelt 0.52 0.11 0.30 0.74
Gabbro Grassy
Bushveld 0.39 0.12 0.15 0.62
Northern Lebombo
Bushveld 0.51 0.13 0.25 0.77
Biomass*altitude 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.10
Biomass*distance to
water -0.19 0.02 -0.24 -0.14
N*distance to water 0.24 0.02 0.19 0.29
Table A6. Coefficients of fixed effects from the best mixed-effect model predicting variations in habitat use intensity by cattle in wet season. The coefficients of land cover classes are calculated in relation to class "bare soil"
Predictor β SE 95 % confidence
interval
Intercept -17.31 0.12 -17.65 -16.99
Burnt areas -0.04 0.09 -0.22 0.13
Grass 0.09 0.05 -0.001 0.18
Shrubs 0.01 0.06 -0.11 0.12
Trees 0.32 0.05 0.22 0.42
Altitude -0.004 0.02 -0.05 0.04
Altitude2 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.15
Distance to water -0.04 0.01 -0.07 -0.01
Distance to settlements -0.02 0.01 -0.05 0.002
N -0.05 0.02 -0.08 -0.01
N2 -0.04 0.01 -0.06 -0.02
Biomass -0.03 0.02 -0.07 0.006
Biomass2 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.07
N*Distance to water 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.07
Biomass*Distance to water -0.08 0.01 -0.10 -0.05
Biomass*Altitude -0.17 0.01 -0.20 -0.14
N*Altitude 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.10
Table A7. Coefficients of fixed effects from the best model predicting variations in habitat use intensity by cattle in dry season. The coefficients of land cover classes are calculated in relation to class “bare soil”.
Predictor β SE 95 % confidence
interval
Intercept -16.95 0.12 -17.26 -16.63
Burnt areas -0.18 0.06 -0.29 -0.07
Grass -0.16 0.05 -0.26 -0.06
Shrubs -0.25 0.07 -0.38 -0.122
Trees -0.02 0.05 -0.13 -0.09
Altitude -0.12 0.02 -0.16 -0.09
Altitude2 -0.07 0.01 -0.09 -0.05
Distance to water -0.20 0.01 -0.22 -0.18
Distance to settlements -0.07 0.01 -0.09 -0.04
N 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.09
N2 0.01 0.01 -0.0003 0.02
Biomass 0.02 0.01 -0.02 0.05
Biomass2 -0.02 0.01 -0.04 -0.002
Biomass*Distance to
water 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.13
Biomass*Altitude 0.11 0.01 -0.13 -0.09
N*Altitude -0.04 0.01 -0.06 -0.02
Table A8. Correlation values and average absolute difference between scenarios.
CORRELATION
Null with fence dry
Null with fence wet
Null no fence dry
Null no fence wet
Dif. beh. cost 50 dry
Dif. beh. cost 50 wet
Dif. beh. cost 100 dry
Dif. beh. cost 100 wet
Dif. beh. cost 200 dry
Dif. beh. cost 200 wet
Same beh. cost 50 dry
Same beh. cost 50 wet
Same beh. cost 100 dry
Same beh. cost 100 wet
Same beh. cost 200 dry
Same beh. cost 200 wet
AV
ER
AG
E D
IFFE
RE
NC
E
Null with fence dry – 1,00 0,50 0,47 -0,10 0,54 -0,16 0,02 -0,10 0,04 0,31 0,34 0,09 0,20 -0,03 0,17
Null with fence wet 14,47 – 0,52 0,50 -0,12 0,54 -0,19 0,00 -0,13 0,01 0,28 0,34 0,05 0,21 -0,09 0,17
Null no fence dry 17,23 31,70 – 0,97 -0,14 0,63 -0,24 0,12 -0,17 0,09 0,51 0,61 0,18 0,37 -0,11 0,25
Null no fence wet 6,21 12,99 18,71 – -0,05 0,69 -0,23 0,17 -0,20 0,06 0,53 0,68 0,19 0,45 -0,14 0,27
Dif. beh. cost 50 dry 1077,95 1063,47 1095,18 1076,46 – 0,33 0,83 0,76 0,52 0,30 0,66 0,45 0,81 0,55 0,77 0,28
Dif. beh. cost 50 wet 748,59 734,12 765,82 747,11 342,32 – 0,12 0,50 0,04 0,26 0,80 0,94 0,56 0,81 0,22 0,52
Dif. beh. cost 100 dry 1221,23 1206,75 1238,46 1219,74 143,28 474,00 – 0,55 0,80 0,24 0,48 0,24 0,66 0,32 0,85 0,13
Dif. beh. cost 100 wet 1172,46 1157,99 1189,69 1170,98 112,39 424,54 74,28 – 0,34 0,66 0,70 0,56 0,82 0,71 0,59 0,48
Dif. beh. cost 200 dry 1266,25 1251,77 1283,48 1264,76 597,34 517,76 45,02 94,74 – 0,26 0,29 0,13 0,43 0,20 0,68 0,19
Dif. beh. cost 200 wet 1271,92 1257,44 1289,15 1270,43 194,25 523,33 54,98 99,46 12,42 – 0,37 0,27 0,46 0,35 0,38 0,40
Same beh. cost 50 dry 668,91 654,43 686,14 667,42 409,04 105,47 552,32 503,55 597,34 603,01 – 0,85 0,88 0,73 0,59 0,43
Same beh. cost 50 wet 711,11 696,64 728,34 709,63 368,31 74,70 510,12 461,35 555,13 560,80 96,38 – 0,62 0,83 0,31 0,50
Same beh. cost 100 dry 1056,85 1042,38 1074,08 1055,37 91,01 311,77 164,38 117,05 209,40 215,07 387,94 345,74 – 0,69 0,79 0,41
Same beh. cost 100 wet 1109,90 1095,42 1127,13 1108,41 127,23 362,19 129,43 70,51 157,05 162,09 440,99 398,78 105,48 – 0,41 0,71
Same beh. cost 200 dry 1224,52 1210,05 1241,75 1223,04 146,59 476,10 32,40 70,48 41,72 48,55 555,62 513,41 167,67 123,44 – 0,28
Same beh. cost 200 wet 1267,45 1252,98 1284,68 1265,97 189,50 518,86 56,98 95,11 15,98 6,51 598,54 556,34 210,60 157,55 47,90 –
Appendix 2 Figure A1. Buffalo-cattle contact risk maps for null scenarios with and without the fence effect, across seasons.
Figure A2. Buffalo-cattle contact risk maps for scenarios with consistent buffalo behaviour inside and outside the protected areas in wet season and for various maximum resistance values.
Figure A3. Buffalo-cattle contact risk maps for scenarios with consistent buffalo behaviour inside and outside the protected areas in dry season and for various maximum resistance values.
Figure A4. Buffalo-cattle contact risk map for scenarios with different buffalo behaviour inside and outside the protected areas in wet season and for various maximum resistance values.
Figure A5. Buffalo-cattle contact risk map for scenarios with different buffalo behaviour inside and outside the protected areas in dry season and for various maximum resistance values.
Figure A6. Matrix of averaged relative differences and correlation between each scenario.
N-null, F-fence, NF-no fence, DB-different behaviour, SB-same behaviour, W-wet, D-dry,
number indicates the maximum resistance value.
top related