Differential Effects of Elevation and Microtopography on Gopher Tortoise Burrow Distributions in Southern Florida
Traci D. Castellón, Corey D. Anderson, Betsie B. Rothermel, and Jennifer L. Beck
Copeia 108: 140–150
Supplemental Figure A. Elevation surfaces for the FW1 flatwoods site during the 2011 survey period. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.
Supplemental Figure B. Elevation surfaces for the FW1 flatwoods site during the 2015 survey period. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); where each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.
Supplemental Figure C. Elevation surfaces for the SC1 scrub site during the 2011 survey period. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.
Supplemental Figure D. Elevation surfaces for the SC1 scrub site during the 2015 survey period. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.
Supplemental Figure E. Elevation surfaces for the SC2 scrub site. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.
Supplemental Figure F. Elevation surfaces for the MX1 mixed-habitat site. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.
Supplemental Figure G. Elevation surfaces for the MX2 mixed-habitat site. Elevation data were based on a digital elevation model (DEM) (A); each pixel was 0.5 m2. We fit (orthogonal) low-order polynomials to the DEM, where the fitted values represent the polynomial trend surface (B), and the residuals represent microtopography (C). To sharpen the image of the microtopography surface, we used a probability integral transformation (D). For surfaces A–C, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as white dots and the study area boundary is represented as a black line; for surface D, Gopher Tortoise burrow locations are shown as black dots and the study area boundary is represented as a white line.