Data from: Incorporating ecological functions in conservation decision making

Decker E, Linke S, Hermoso V, Geist J

Date Published: September 8, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.bk760

Files in this package

Content in the Dryad Digital Repository is offered "as is." By downloading files, you agree to the Dryad Terms of Service. To the extent possible under law, the authors have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this data. CC0 (opens a new window) Open Data (opens a new window)

Title figure1
Downloaded 5 times
Description Best solution of planning units with a target of 10 without and with trophic weighting (= scaling 0.01-1). (a) red coloured areas show planning units (pu) selected in scenarios without trophic weighting (b) green coloured areas show planning units selected in scenarios with trophic weighting (c) difference in selected planning units with (green area) and without (red area) trophic weighting, grey coloured areas show planning units selected in both scenarios. Broad blue line indicates main stem; thin blue lines indicate tributaries of the Danube River.
Download figure1.png (5.343 Mb)
Details View File Details
Title Figure2
Downloaded 5 times
Description Effect of incorporating trophic level information and different weightings on average proportion of predator species per planning unit in chosen area. Average proportion of predator species for all planning units is indicated by orange line; Average proportion of predator species in chosen areas is shown for each target in runs without trophic information and for each target and weighting in runs with trophic information. Proportion of predator species for each target of runs without trophic information are drawn with thicker, solid lines and over all weightings, although no weighting was performed, to illustrate the difference between runs with trophic information, which are drawn with thinner, dashed lines. Trophic weighting is ratio highest to lowest with 3 being a weighting of 0.3-1, 4 being 0.25-1, 5 being 0.2-1, 6 being 0.15-1, 10 being 0.1-1, 20 being 0.05-1 and 100 being 0.01-1. a indicates significant difference (p <0.001) between scenarios with the same target.
Download Figure2.png (571.3 Kb)
Details View File Details
Title figure3
Downloaded 4 times
Description Effect of incorporating trophic level information and different weightings on average proportion of predator species per planning unit in unique chosen area. Average proportion of predator species for all planning units is indicated by orange line; Average proportion of predator species in chosen area unique to either runs without or with trophic information is shown for each target and each weighting. Proportion of predator species for runs without trophic information are drawn with thicker solid lines. Proportion of predator species for runs with trophic information are drawn with thinner dashed lines. Trophic weighting is ratio highest to lowest with 3 being a scaling of 0.3-1, 4 being 0.25-1, 5 being 0.2-1, 6 being 0.15-1, 10 being 0.1-1, 20 being 0.05-1 and 100 being 0.01-1. a and b indicate significant difference (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05 respectively) between scenarios with the same target.
Download figure3.png (863.2 Kb)
Details View File Details
Title Appendix S1_ Species trophic level according to FishBase and assigned group
Downloaded 9 times
Description Species trophic level according to FishBase and assigned group
Download Appendix S1_ Species trophic level accord...up.jpg (252.5 Kb)
Details View File Details
Title Appendix S2_ Number of species and their occurrence rate in planning units that could not achieve the target
Downloaded 4 times
Description Number of species and their occurrence rate in planning units that could not achieve the target
Download Appendix S2_ Number of species and their ...et.jpg (12.60 Kb)
Details View File Details
Title Appendix S3_ Cohen's kappa value for all targets and weightings
Downloaded 7 times
Description Cohen's kappa value for all targets and weightings
Download Appendix S3_ Cohen's kappa value for all ...gs.jpg (40.35 Kb)
Details View File Details
Title Appendix S4_ Average predator proportion of randomized batches of 1000 samples
Downloaded 5 times
Description Average predator proportion of randomized batches of 1000 samples
Download Appendix S4_ Average predator proportion o....xlsx (51.84 Kb)
Details View File Details

When using this data, please cite the original publication:

Decker E, Linke S, Hermoso V, Geist J (2017) Incorporating ecological functions in conservation decision making. Ecology and Evolution 7(20): 8273-8281. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3353

Additionally, please cite the Dryad data package:

Decker E, Linke S, Hermoso V, Geist J (2017) Data from: Incorporating ecological functions in conservation decision making. Dryad Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.bk760
Cite | Share
Download the data package citation in the following formats:
   RIS (compatible with EndNote, Reference Manager, ProCite, RefWorks)
   BibTex (compatible with BibDesk, LaTeX)

Search for data

Be part of Dryad

We encourage organizations to: