Home-range use patterns and movements of the Siberian flying squirrel in urban forests: Effects of habitat composition and connectivity

Table 3 Ranking matrices of habitats used during movements versus habitats available within the home range

Habitat type	Suitable	Movement	Unsuitable	Urban	Rank
1) All (N = 39)
Suitable	0.000	1.603 ^a	3.829 ^a	3.252 ^a	1
Movement	−1.603	0.000	2.113 ^a	1.580 ^a	2
Unsuitable	−3.829	−2.113	0.000	0.090	3
Urban	−3.252	−1.580	−0.090	0.000	4
2) Females (n = 17)
Suitable	0.000	0.630 ^a	3.181 ^a	2.002 ^a	1
Movement	−0.630	0.000	2.629 ^a	1.464 ^a	2
Unsuitable	−3.181	−2.629	0.000	−0.445	4
Urban	−2.002	−1.464	0.445	0.000	3
3) Males (n = 22)
Suitable	0.000	1.418 ^a	3.483 ^a	3.594 ^a	1
Movement	−1.418	0.000	2.166	2.434 ^a	2
Unsuitable	−3.483	−2.166	0.000	0.666	3
Urban	−3.594	−2.434	−0.666	0.000	4

The results are shown 1) for all individuals, 2) for females only, and 3) for males only. Proportions of habitats used during movement bursts were compared to proportions of habitats within the home range (100 % MCP) by compositional analysis. Ranking matrix shows the mean differences between log-ratios of used and available habitat types. When habitat in a row is used more than habitat in a column, the value is bolded, and additionally ^a denotes that the difference in use significant at the 0.05 level. Last column shows the ranking of habitat use (1 = most used, 4 = least used)

ISSN: 2051-3933