Table 2.
Relationship between avian abundance in a surveyed field and payment and habitat type (improved/semi-improved) at the field scale, and seminatural habitat and AES coverage (and their square terms) at the landscape scale. Akaike weights (wi) and model averaged parameter estimates in bold indicate that the variable appears in the most parsimonious model.
| total |
upland |
conservation concern |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| parameter | wi | parameter | wi | parameter | wi | |
| field scale | ||||||
| improved | 0.995 | — | −3.547 | — | 0.037 | — |
| semi-improved | −0.015 | 0.319 | 0.855 | 1 | 0.334 | 0.989 |
| payment | 0 | 0.343 | 0 | 0.621 | −0.003 | 0.681 |
| habitat: AES interaction | 0.001 | 0.135 | −0.001 | 0.252 | 0.003 | 0.469 |
| landscape scale | ||||||
| AES | −0.057 | 0.257 | 3.539 | 0.990 | −0.683 | 0.862 |
| AES2 | 0.037 | 0.063 | −2.034 | 0.685 | 0.361 | 0.615 |
| seminatural | 0.056 | 0.284 | −0.151 | 0.999 | −1.725 | 0.940 |
| seminatural2 | 0.009 | 0.063 | 1.591 | 0.651 | 1.575 | 0.773 |
| seminatural: AES interaction | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.061 | 0.305 | 1.129 | 0.449 |
| correlation coefficient between predicted and observed abundance | 0.439 | 0.770 | 0.662 | |||