Supporting material for “Both forest fragmentation and coffee cultivation negatively affect epiphytic orchid diversity in Ethiopian moist evergreen Afromontane forests”
Kitessa Hundera, Raf Aerts, Matthias De Beenhouwer, Koen Van Overtveld, Kenny Helsen, Bart Muys, and Olivier Honnay
Appendices A-C
Appendix A. Epiphytic orchids identified in the three coffee forest types (SMF: Small managed forests; LMF: Large managed forests; LNF: Large natural forests). For significant indicator species
(p < 0.05) the indicator value is given. The IV ranges from 0 (no indication) to 100 (perfect indication).
Aerangis brachycarpa (A. Rich.) Th.Dur. & Schinz (R, VU) / Dense shade, low on tree trunks or in bushes in forest and wooded grassland / × / × / 21.3
Aerangis luteo-alba (Kraenzl.) Schltr. (VU, lce) / Montane forest, coffee shrubs / × / × / ×
Aerangis thomsonii (Rolfe) Schltr. (EN) / Shade, low on trunks in forest / 7.6
Angraecum humile Summerh. (R, EN) / Tree crowns in SFC / ×
Bulbophyllum intertextum Lindl. (VU, lce) / Moist forest / × / 24.0
Bulbophyllum josephi (Kuntze) Summerh. (VU, lce) / Montane forest / × / 42.2
Bulbophyllum sp. / ×
Diaphananthe candida P.J.Cribb (EN) / Forest edge and wooded grassland / × / 19.3 / ×
Diaphananthe fragrantissima (Rchb.f) Schltr. (EN) / Forest, bushland and rocky habitat / ×
Diaphananthe rohrii (Rchb.f.) Summerh. (R, VU) / Montane forest / ×
Diaphananthe tenuicalcar Summerh. (VU) / Forest edge and wooded grassland / × / 22.3 / ×
Microcoelia globulosa (Hochst.) L.Jonss. (VU) / Forest margins and secondary growth / 38.5 / × / ×
Polystachya bennettiana Rchb.f. / Open woodland and secondary forest / × / × / 65.2
Polystachya caduca Rchb.f. (VU) / Montane Afrocarpus forest and grassland / × / 10.7 / ×
Polystachya cultriformis (Thouars) Spreng. (VU, lce) / Montane forest and secondary forest / 43.5
Polystachya eurychila Summerh. (VU) / Riverine forest and wet rock / × / × / ×
Polystachya sp. / ×
Polystachya steudneri Rchb.f. (VU) / Deciduous woodland and dry scrub / × / 33.2
Polystachya tessellata Lindl. (VU, lce) / Forest and riverine forest / 8.5
Rhipidoglossum adoxum (F.N.Rasm.) Senghas / Forest and woodland / × / × / ×
Stolzia grandiflora P.J.Cribb (VU) / Forest edge / ×
Stolzia repens (Rolfe) Summerh. (R, lce) / Moist forest / ×
Total / 9 / 14 / 20
Codes in brackets after scientific name denote status in Ethiopia according to Demissew et al. (2004): R: rare; VU: vulnerable; EN: endangered. The addition ‘lce’ is given when a species is locally common in other countries (locally common elsewhere).
Appendix B. Mixed model results testing for a relation between species richness, community composition (NMS1 and NMS2) and True diversity, and Forest type (Small managed forest; Large managed forest; Large natural forest). Mean values for the different forest types and significances of the pairwise comparisons according to a LSD test are presented in Fig. 4.
Species richness S / 339 / 15.89 / 0.001
True diversity N1 / 339 / 9.66 / 0.001
NMS1 / 294 / 56.9 / 0.001
NMS2 / 294 / 4.15 / 0.02
Appendix C. Pairwise comparisons (LSD) among the three forest types for the marginal model means of species richness S, community composition and true diversity N1. SMF: Small managed forest, LMF: Large managed forest, LNF: Large natural forest. Models are presented in Table 2.
S / LNF vs LMF / 0.94 / 0.05
LNF vs SMF / 2.22 / < 0.001
LMF vs SMF / 1.28 / < 0.001
N1 / LNF vs LMF / 0.46 / 0.09
LNF vs SMF / 1.41 / < 0.001
LMF vs SMF / 0.95 / 0.008
NMS1 / LNF vs LMF / 0.59 / < 0.001
LNF vs SMF / 0.79 / < 0.001
LMF vs SMF / 0.20 / 0.05
NMS2 / LNF vs LMF / 0.22 / 0.001
LNF vs SMF / 0.19 / 0.001
LMF vs SMF / 0.03 / 0.849