Relative performance of linkage designs with respect to focal species.

<p>Footnotes in the last 2 columns indicate the metrics that differed most between the two types of linkage designs.</p>1<p>For this species-landscape combination, elevation and topographic position (factors in the land facet models) had a combined weight >50% in the focal species model.</p>2<p>The single 26-km gap between modeled breeding patches in the focal species design was much worse than the 2 gaps of 8.6 and 1.9 km in the land facets design (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048965#pone-0048965-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>).</p>3<p>The resistance profile was much lower in the land facets design (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048965#pone-0048965-g005" target="_blank">Figure 5A</a>).</p>4<p>The maximum distance between breeding patches was 23% shorter in the land facets design (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048965#pone-0048965-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>), but this was offset by the greater combined length of the two gaps and their higher resistance profiles in the land facets design.</p>5<p>Lengths of largest gaps between modeled breeding patches were much shorter in the land facets design (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048965#pone-0048965-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>).</p>6<p>Resistance profiles were lower in the land facets design than in the focal species design.</p>7<p>Lengths of largest gaps between modeled breeding patches were shorter in the focal species design (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048965#pone-0048965-t003" target="_blank">Table 3</a>).