File S1 - Is Response to Fire Influenced by Dietary Specialization and Mobility? A Comparative Study with Multiple Animal Assemblages

Supporting information file including Text S1, Tables S1–S4, and Figure S1. Text S1. Description of the sampling methods. Table S1. Basic data of the 15 sampled plots and abundances of animal species: burnt logging (L1 to L5), burnt subsoiling (S1 to S5) and unburnt (U1 to U5); Data: species included (Y) and excluded (N) in statistical analyses according to the number of records. FG (feeding groups): zoophagous (1), phytophagous (2), saprovorous (3) and omnivorous (4). Table S2. List of plant species and presence in the three areas: logging (“L”), subsoiling (“S”) and unburnt (“U”). Table S3. R values and significance (* denotes p The last rows are R values for the overall animal (abundance) and plant (presence/absence) species. The Global R column indicates the overall comparison of the three areas. The rest of the columns indicate the pairwise comparison between areas, with the R value and significance. Acronyms of the three areas are unburnt reference (“U”), logging (“L”) and subsoiling (“S”). For acronyms of groups, see text. Table S4. R values and significance (* denotes p The Global R column indicates the overall comparison among the three areas. The rest of the columns indicate the pairwise comparison between areas, with the R value and signification. Acronyms of the three areas are unburnt reference (“U”), logging (“L”) and subsoiling (“S”). For acronyms of groups, see text. Figure S1. Comparison of the total number of animal species and evenness among areas for each animal group: unburnt “U”, logging “L” and subsoiling “S”. Each column represents average scores ± standard error. Each figure includes the ANOVA or Kruskall-Wallis tests, and letters refer to post hoc comparisons between areas. (DOCX)