Giacomo Assandri*, Michelangelo Morganti, Giuseppe Bogliani, Francisco Pulido

Online resource for:

The value of abandoned olive groves for BlackcapsSylvia atricapilla in a Mediterranean agroecosystem: a year round telemetry study.

Giacomo Assandri*, Michelangelo Morganti, Giuseppe Bogliani, Francisco Pulido

*Correspondig author at University of Pavia, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Via Ferrata 9, 27100 Pavia, Italy. .

Supplementary method details

Habitat definition and mapping

Habitat categories were defined following EUNIS categories (Davies et al. 2004; see also: New categories were added when habitat typologies observed in the study area were not considered in the EUNIS categorization. In total, 27 habitat categories were identified, but at the analytical stage some of them were merged according to a criterion based on vegetation macro-typology and olive-grove management, in order to reduce the number of modelled factors and improve the interpretative power of the models.

Home range calculation

Home ranges were calculated as fixed kernel at 95% using the “HRT tools” extension (Rodgers et al. 2007) for ArcGis 9.3. The smoothing parameter of the kernel (href) was individually-adjusted by selecting the smallest value of href (rounded to the nearest 0.05) for which the external boundary of the kernel remains continuous, following the progressive method described in the HRT tools manual (Rodgers et al. 2007). Home-range calculation was based on a mean of 33 ± 1 (range: 16-54) locations for each blackcap.

Reference cited

Davies CE, Moss D, Hill MO (2004) Eunis Habitat Classification revised 2004. European Environment Agency. European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity.

Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Beyer HL, Smith L, Kie JG (2007) HRT: Home Range Tools for ArcGIS. Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Table ESM1. Simplified ranking matrix of habitat typologies obtained with compositional analysis for non-breeding period (2011-2012 data pooled; N=30). Habitat typologies are listed in order of preference from top to bottom and left to right. +: row habitat positively selected with respect to column habitat; -: row habitat negatively selected with respect to column habitat. +++ or --- indicate statistical significance of preference or avoidance in randomization tests.

Deciduous wood / Abandoned olive groves / Poplar plantations / River and riparian vegetation / Sparsely wooded grasslands / Gardens and orchards / Pinus forest and similar / Managed olive groves / Open areas / Rank
Deciduous wood / 0 / + / + / + / +++ / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / 1
Abandoned olive groves / - / 0 / + / + / +++ / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / 2
Poplar plantations / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / 3
River and riparian vegetation / - / - / - / 0 / + / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / 4
Sparsely wooded grasslands / --- / --- / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / +++ / 5
Gardens and orchards / - / - / - / - / - / 0 / + / + / +++ / 6
Pinus forest and similar / --- / --- / --- / --- / - / - / 0 / + / + / 7
Managed olive groves / --- / --- / --- / --- / - / - / - / 0 / + / 8
Open areas / --- / --- / --- / --- / --- / --- / - / - / 0 / 9

Table ESM2. Simplified ranking matrix of habitat typologies obtained with compositional analysis for the winter 2012 (N=21). Habitat typologies are listed in order of preference from top to bottom and left to right. +: row habitat positively selected with respect to column habitat; -: row habitat negatively selected with respect to column habitat. +++ or --- indicate statistical significance in randomization tests. Table for winter 2011 is not presented because it was not possible to obtain a ranking matrix for the winter 2011 (see text).

Abandoned olive groves / Deciduous wood / Gardens and orchards / Poplar plantations / Managed olive groves / River and riparian vegetation / Sparsely wooded grasslands / Pinus forest and similar / Open areas / Rank
Abandoned olive groves / 0 / + / + / + / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / +++ / 1
Deciduous wood / - / 0 / + / + / + / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / 2
Gardens and orchards / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / + / + / +++ / 3
Poplar plantation / - / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / + / +++ / 4
Managed olive groves / - / - / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / +++ / 5
River and riparian vegetation / --- / - / - / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / 6
Sparsely wooded grasslands / --- / --- / - / - / - / - / 0 / + / + / 7
Pinus forest and similar / --- / --- / - / - / - / - / - / 0 / +++ / 8
Open areas / --- / --- / --- / --- / --- / - / - / --- / 0 / 9

Table ESM3. Simplified ranking matrix of habitat typologies obtained with compositional analysis for breeding period (2011-2012 data pooled; N=27). Habitat typologies are listed in order of preference from top to bottom and left to right. +: row habitat positively selected with respect to column habitat; -: row habitat negatively selected with respect to column habitat. +++ or --- indicate statistical significance of randomization tests.

Poplar plantations / River and riparian vegetation / Deciduous wood / Sparsely wooded grasslands / Abandoned olive groves / Gardens and orchards / Open areas / Rank
Poplar plantations / 0 / +++ / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / +++ / 1
River and riparian vegetation / --- / 0 / + / +++ / +++ / +++ / +++ / 2
Deciduous wood / - / - / 0 / + / + / + / +++ / 3
Sparsely wooded grasslands / --- / --- / - / 0 / +++ / + / + / 4
Abandoned olive groves / --- / --- / - / --- / 0 / + / + / 5
Gardens and orchards / --- / --- / - / - / - / 0 / + / 6
Open areas / --- / --- / --- / - / - / - / 0 / 7