Table 2. A summary of the landscape genetics based ranking of the 48 landscape representations, with the parameterisation of the associated accumulated-cost dispersal kernel.
| Representation a | E | P | T | R | H | B | Rank b | w i | r 2 | μlog | σlog | maxDC |
| DTR | - | - | 4.78 | 445.43 | - | - | 1 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 9.74 | 0.71 | 79863 |
| DR | - | - | - | 259.29 | - | - | 2 | 0.14 | 0.31 | 8.53 | 0.59 | 24492 |
| DTRH | - | - | 4.14 | 345.80 | 24.40 | - | 3 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 9.69 | 0.69 | 73144 |
| DPTR | - | 2.65 | 4.67 | 793.76 | - | - | 4 | 0.07 | 0.34 | 10.08 | 0.66 | 114941 |
| DRH | - | - | - | 259.82 | 13.33 | - | 5 | 0.07 | 0.31 | 8.57 | 0.57 | 25564 |
| DPR | - | 5.22 | - | 981.20 | - | - | 6 | 0.05 | 0.32 | 9.73 | 0.63 | 89911 |
| DPTRH | - | 2.44 | 6.37 | 638.90 | 97.94 | - | 7 | 0.03 | 0.32 | 10.33 | 0.67 | 134542 |
| DER | 0.11 | - | - | 319.56 | - | - | 8 | 0.02 | 0.32 | 8.55 | 0.60 | 27353 |
| DPRH | - | 4.73 | - | 830.30 | 33.00 | - | 9 | 0.01 | 0.31 | 9.71 | 0.61 | 82445 |
| DETR | 0.19 | - | 3.88 | 476.05 | - | - | 10 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 9.58 | 0.72 | 72338 |
| DEPR | 0.15 | 4.88 | - | 950.56 | - | - | 11 | 0.01 | 0.32 | 9.68 | 0.63 | 86879 |
| … | ||||||||||||
| D | - | - | - | - | - | - | 46 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 8.33 | 0.52 | 12799 |
a
Each landscape representation measured connectivity as a function of distance (D) and the traversal costs resulting from the inter-feature weights of elevation (E), plan curvature (P), tree and scrub cover (T), river order (R), highway traffic volume (H), and bridge length (B).
b
Landscape representations were ranked by their Akaike weight (w i). Only the top ranked cost-surface landscape representations (Σw i≤0.95) plus the uniform landscape representation are listed.
r 2 = coefficient of determination (in all cases p≤0.03), μlog = the mean of the logarithm of the lognormal dispersal kernel, σlog = the standard deviation of the logarithm of the lognormal dispersal kernel, maxDC = maximum observed dispersal connectivity value.