Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10261/331340COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
 SHARE
BASE
|
|
| Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE | |
| Título: | Supporting Information: Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes |
Autor: | Laguna, Eduardo CSIC ORCID; Barasona, José A. CSIC ORCID; Carpio, Antonio J. CSIC ORCID; Vicente, Joaquín CSIC ORCID ; Acevedo, Pelayo CSIC ORCID | Fecha de publicación: | 2022 | Editor: | Wiley-VCH | Citación: | Laguna, Eduardo; Barasona, José A.; Carpio, Antonio J.; Vicente, Joaquín; Acevedo, Pelayo; 2022; Supporting Information: Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes [Dataset]; Wiley-VCH; https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6853 | Descripción: | Table S1. Data for the 21 wild boar monitored by GPS-collars in this study. Table S2. Questionnaire for the characterization of fences, boundaries and perimeters of the estates in the study area. Fig. S1. Main type of fences presents in our study area. Type I (simple [A] or reinforced livestock-type fence [B]), type II (poorly-maintained big game-proof fence), type III (moderately-maintained big game-proof fence) and type IV (well-maintained big game- proof fence). Fig. S2. Fences crosses by wild boar family groups (data from photo-trapping) and some images of holes in fences obtained during the walking tour to quantify the permeability index (number of holes per km of fence). Table S3. Type of fence by main land use in the study area. Each fence (n=189) featured one or two land use. We included: length in m and percentage of type of fence for each of the possible combinations between land use. Table S4. Model selection results from the analysis of the factors influencing wild boar crossing success across fences. The corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICc) and delta AICc (ΔAICc), i.e. the difference in AICc score relative to the model with the lowest value (most parsimonious model), are showed. As predictors were used: Type of fence (I-IV), Sex (males, females), Period (FSP, Hunting, FAP; see text for details) and their interactions (Sex*Period, Sex*Type and Type*Period). Individual (ID) was considered as a random effect factor. Fig. S3. Average daily activity of the wild boar monitored in this study. The grey band represent the inactivity period which will be excluded for the estimation of the crossing success. Fig. S4. Temporal and seasonal patterns of the interactions between animals and fences. (A) Number of crosses and bounces per month (from 1=January to 12=December). (B) Number of crosses and bounces per period (FSP= food shortage period, Hunting= hunting season, FAP= food abundance period). Appendix 1- Fence Behaviour Analysis. | URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/331340 | DOI: | 10.1002/ps.6853 | Referencias: | Laguna, Eduardo; Barasona, José A.; Carpio, Antonio J.; Vicente, Joaquín; Acevedo, Pelayo. Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6853. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/284009 |
| Aparece en las colecciones: | (IREC) Conjuntos de datos |
Ficheros en este ítem:
| Fichero | Descripción | Tamaño | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ps6853-sup-0001-supinfo.docx | 9,74 MB | Microsoft Word XML | Visualizar/Abrir | |
| README.txt | 2,74 kB | Text | Visualizar/Abrir |
CORE Recommender
Page view(s)
71
checked on 29-abr-2024
Download(s)
9
checked on 29-abr-2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Altmetric
Este item está licenciado bajo una Licencia Creative Commons
