Interacting effects of habitat structure and seeding with oysters on the intertidal biodiversity of seawalls

absent (-) based on sampling at month 12, whereby sessile and mobile species were censused using destructive sampling and pelagic and cryptic fish were sampled using GoPros in situ. If species were recorded at months 1 and/or 6, but not at month 12, they are listed but marked as absent at 12 months. (DOCX) S2 Table. Results of generalised linear models testing the effects of habitat structure (flat vs. complex tiles) and microhabitat identity (crevice vs. ridge, nested within the complex tiles), on the number of live seeded S. glomerata sampled in-situ. The surface area of the tiles or microhabitats (offset), site and month (repeated measure) were also included in the model. Post hoc tests for significant factors of interest are shown. Tests significant at α = 0.05 are shown in bold. (DOCX) S3 Table. Results of generalised linear models testing the effects of habitat structure (flat vs. complex) and microhabitat identity (crevice vs. ridge, nested within the complex tiles) and seeding with oysters (unseeded [US] vs. seeded [S]) on the percentage cover of S. glo- merata sampled in-situ through time. The surface area of the tiles or microhabitats (offset), site and month (repeated measure) were also included in the model. Post hoc tests for signifi- cant factors of interest are shown. Tests significant at α = 0.05 are shown in bold. (DOCX) S4 Table. Results of generalised linear models testing the effects of seeding with oysters (unseeded vs. seeded) and habitat structure (flat vs. complex tiles) or microhabitat identity

(crevice vs. ridge, nested within complex tiles) on the species density sampled destructively at month 12 for the sessile algae and invertebrates (sessile) and mobile invertebrates (mobile) and in-situ at month 12 for cryptobenthic fishes and pelagic fishes. The surface area of tiles or microhabitats (offset) and site were also included in the model. Post hoc tests for significant factors of interest are shown. Tests significant at α = 0.05 are shown in bold. (DOCX) S5 Table. Results of generalised linear models testing the effects of seeding with oysters (unseeded vs. seeded) and habitat structure (flat vs. complex tiles) or microhabitat identity (crevice vs. ridge, nested within complex tiles) on the percentage cover of sessile algae and invertebrates (sessile), the total abundance of mobile invertebrates (mobile) and the MaxN of each of cryptobenthic fishes and pelagic fishes. Functional groups were sampled in-situ, 1 6- and 12-months following deployment of tiles. The surface area of tiles or microhabitats (off- set), site and month (repeated measure) were also included in the model. Post hoc tests for sig- nificant factors of interest are shown. Tests significant at α = 0.05 are shown in bold. (DOCX) S6 Table. Results of generalised linear models testing the effects of seeding with oysters (unseeded vs. seeded) and habitat structure (flat vs. complex tiles) or microhabitat identity (crevice vs. ridge, nested within complex tiles) on the percentage cover of the sessile algae and invertebrates (sessile) and the total abundance of mobile invertebrates (mobile) sam-

pled destructively at month 12. The surface area of tiles or microhabitats (offset), site and month (repeated measure) were also included in the model. Post hoc tests for significant fac- tors of interest are shown. Tests significant at α = 0.05 are shown in bold. (DOCX) S7 Table. Results of generalised linear models testing the effects of seeding with oysters (unseeded vs. seeded) and microhabitat identity (crevice or ridge each tested separately vs. PLOS ONE Effects of microhabitats and seeding with oysters on intertidal biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230807 July 16, 2020 17 / 21