Table 4 Results of the bivariate O-ring statistic for bivariate analysis
Sites | Point pattern | Model | P (0–10 m) | Rank | Distance (m) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |||||
CDF1 | Cs saplings vs trees | Toroidal shift | 0.155 | 170 | r | R | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | |||||
CDF2 | Cs saplings vs trees | Toroidal shift | 0.135 | 174 | r | R | + | r | + | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
CDF4 | Cs saplings vs trees | Toroidal shift | 0.670 | 66 | r | R | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
CDF5 | Cs saplings vs trees | Toroidal shift | 0.120 | 170 | r | R | r | r | r | r | r | r | – | r | r | r | r | r | r |
CDF6 | Cs saplings vs trees | Toroidal shift | 0.220 | 157 | r | R | r | – | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
CDF5 | Cs young vs old cohorts | Toroidal shift | 0.795 | 42 | r | R | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
CDF6 | Cs young vs old cohorts | Toroidal shift | 0.035 | 194 | r | R | – | r | r | – | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r |
CDF1 | Cs alive vs dead trees | Random labeling | 0.005 | 200 | – | – | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | |||||
CDF2 | Cs alive vs dead trees | Random labeling | 0.005 | 200 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | r | r |
CDF3 | Cs alive vs dead trees | Random labeling | 0.010 | 199 | – | R | r | – | r | r | – | – | – | r | r | – | r | r | r |
CDF1 | Cs alive and dead trees vs other trees | Trivariate | r | R | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | r | |||||||
CDF2 | Cs alive and dead trees vs other trees | Trivariate | r | R | r | r | r | r | r | – | r | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
CDF3 | Cs alive and dead trees vs other trees | Trivariate | r | + | + | + | + | + | r | r | r | r | – | r | r | – | r | ||