Electronic Supplementary Material

Constraints and time lags for recovery of a keystone species (Dipodomys spectabilis) after landscape restoration

Bradley J. Cosentino, Robert L. Schooley, Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Jeffrey F. Kelly, and John

M. Coffman

Correspondence: B.J. Cosentino, Department of Biology, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA. e-mail: cosentino@hws.edu

Guide to Supplementary Material: Supplementary Material 1. Comparison of mean (± 1 SE) shrub cover among areas not treated with herbicide, areas treated with herbicide between 1994–2004, and areas treated with herbicide between 1982–1989. Supplementary Material 2. Map of study sites, land cover, and grassland restoration treatments in southern New Mexico, U.S.A. Supplementary Material 3. Model selection statistics for effects of local and landscape constraints on differences in density of occupied mounds of Dipodomys spectabilis between paired treated and untreated areas (Δ = Treated – Untreated) in southern New Mexico, USA Supplementary Material 4. Comparison of mean (± 1 SE) difference in density of mounds occupied by Dipodomys spectabilis between paired treated and untreated areas (Δ = Treated – Untreated) at sites with sandy and non-sandy soils.

Supplementary Material 1

Figure S1. Comparison of mean (± 1 SE) shrub cover among areas not treated with herbicide

(untreated), areas treated with herbicide between 1994–2004 (young), and areas treated with

herbicide between 1982–1989 (old). See “Methods” in main paper for details on site selection

and vegetation sampling.

Untreated Young Old

Shru

b co

ver (

%)

04

812

1620

Supplementary Material 2

Figure S2. Map of study sites, land cover, and grassland restoration treatments in southern New

Mexico, U.S.A. Treated areas in the study region are represented by a color gradation

corresponding to treatment age (range = 1–30 yrs). Circles represent study sites with paired

treated and untreated areas.

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

0 5025Km±

Hatch

Area of detail

Young Treatments Old Treatments

Shrubland Forest Study Sites

Grassland Water Developed / Barren

Supplementary Material 3

Table S1. Model selection statistics for effects of local and landscape constraints on differences

in density of occupied mounds of Dipodomys spectabilis between paired treated and untreated

areas (Δ = Treated – Untreated) in southern New Mexico, USA

Model ΔAICC ωi L K Age + Connectivity 0.00 0.32 -29.58 4 Age 0.36 0.27 -31.30 3 Age + Texture 2.42 0.09 -30.79 4 Age + Area 2.67 0.08 -30.91 4 Connectivity 3.39 0.06 -32.82 3 Age + Restrictive 3.41 0.06 -31.29 4 Connectivity + Texture 4.21 0.04 -31.69 4 Connectivity + Restrictive 5.94 0.02 -32.55 4 Connectivity + Area 5.96 0.02 -32.56 4 Texture 6.05 0.02 -34.15 3 Null 6.45 0.01 -35.73 2 Area 8.13 0.01 -35.19 3 Texture + Restrictive 8.19 0.01 -33.68 4 Restrictive 8.43 0.00 -35.34 3 Texture + Area 8.99 0.00 -34.07 4 Restrictive + Area 10.74 0.00 -34.95 4 ΔAICC is the difference between AICC of each model and the most-supported model, ωi is the

Akaike weight of model i, L is the log-likelihood, and K is the number of parameters. Main

effects included treatment age (years since treatment), connectivity, soil texture (sandy or not

sandy), and presence of a shallow restrictive soil horizon. “Null” indicates a model with an

intercept only.

Supplementary Material 4

Figure S3. Comparison of mean (± 1 SE) difference in density of mounds occupied by

Dipodomys spectabilis between paired treated and untreated areas (Δ = Treated – Untreated) at

sites with sandy and non-sandy soils.

 

Sandy Not sandy

Diff

eren

ce in

den

sity

(occ

upie

d m

ound

s/ha

)0.

00.

51.

01.

52.

0