Table 5 Results of one-way ANOVA (F, Fisher test; P, probability) performed on the traits sampled, for each species, in the different geographical locations and testing the differences between the two fire modalities. In italics: log transformed data; in bold: significant results. PHF, P. halepensis in “Fire” modality; PHNF, P. halepensis in “Non-Fire” modality; PSF, P. sylvestris in “Fire” modality; PSNF, P. sylvestris in “Non-Fire” modality
P. halepensis | P. sylvestris | ||
|---|---|---|---|
North+ South | Self-pruning | F = 0.66, P = 0.42 | F = 5.73, P = 0.017 |
Bark thickness | F = 2.57, P = 0.11 | F = 24.33, P < 0.01 PSF < PSNF | |
Surface to volume ratio | F = 16.70, P < 0.01 PHF > PHNF | F = 0.65, P = 0.42 | |
Relative growth rate | F = 0.07, P = 0.79 | F = 13.85, P < 0.01 PSF > PSNF | |
Bulk density | F = 1.67, P = 0.20 | F = 2.59, P = 0.11 | |
North | Self-pruning | F = 3.91, P = 0.05 PHF > PHNF | F = 0.00, P = 0.94 |
Bark thickness | F = 0.80, P = 0.37 | F = 11.44, P < 0.01 PSF < PSNF | |
Surface to volume ratio | F = 10.76, P < 0.01 PHF > PHNF | F = 0.80, P = 0.37 | |
Relative growth rate | F = 0.81, P = 0.37 | F = 5.15, P = 0.02 PSF > PSNF | |
Bulk density | F = 12.61, P < 0.01 PHF > PHNF | F = 3.09, P = 0.08 | |
South | Self-pruning | F = 1.05, P = 0.31 | F = 8.64, P < 0.01 PSF > PSNF |
Bark thickness | F = 5.62, P = 0.02 PHF < PHNF | F = 8.56, P < 0.01 PSF < PSNF | |
Surface to volume ratio | F = 4.62, P = 0.03 PHF > PHNF | F = 0.08, P = 0.78 | |
Relative growth rate | F = 2.85, P = 0.09 | F = 15.05, P < 0.01 PSF > PSNF | |
Bulk density | F = 22.79, P < 0.01 PHF < PHNF | F = 1.55, P = 0.22 | |