Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

Table 1 in Circulating dengue virus serotypes and vertical transmission in AEdES larvae during outbreak and inter-outbreak seasons in a high dengue risk area of Sri Lanka

<p><b>Table 1</b> Distribution of <i>Aedes</i> mosquito larvae in and around residences of patients with suspected dengue in Mawanella from December 2015 to March 2017</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Period</th><th>Month and year of sample collection</th><th>Total no. of vector pools collected in entomological survey</th><th>No. of <i>Aedes</i> mosquito pools identified</th></tr><tr><th><i>Ae. aegypti</i></th><th><i>Ae. albopictus</i></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Epidemic</th><td>12/2015</td><td>18</td><td>3</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>1/2016</td><td>22</td><td>8</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><th>Inter-epidemic</th><td>2/2016</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>3/2016</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>4/2016</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>5/2016</td><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>6/2016</td><td>15</td><td>9</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><th>Epidemic</th><td>7/2016</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>8/2016</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>9/2016</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><th>Inter-epidemic</th><td>10/2016</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>11/2016</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><th>Epidemic</th><td>12/2016</td><td>14</td><td>3</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>1/2017</td><td>23</td><td>8</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><th>Inter-epidemic</th><td>2/2017</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>3/2017</td><td>25</td><td>8</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><th>Total</th><td></td><td>171</td><td>49</td><td>122</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2018View details →

Table 3 in Acoustic monitoring reveals the times and tides of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) distribution off central Oregon, U. S. A.

<p><i>Table 3.</i> Simultaneous DMON site deployment data: For the periods when recording devices were present at both the reef and offshore sites and simultaneously recording, the number and percent of porpoise positive minutes (PPMs), and buzz positive minutes (BPMs) detected at each site are given, as well as the number and percent (displayed in bold) that were detected at both sites simultaneously during the same 10 min time period.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Detection type</th><th>Location</th><th>Number of detections</th><th>Percent of total detection type</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>PPMs</th><td>Reef Offshore Present at both</td><td>1,297 514 521</td><td>55.6% 22.0% <b>22.3%</b></td></tr><tr><th>BPMs</th><td>Reef Offshore Present at both</td><td>546 207 43</td><td>68.6% 26.0% 5.4%</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2018View details →

Table 2 in Acoustic monitoring reveals the times and tides of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) distribution off central Oregon, U. S. A.

<p><i>Table 2.</i> Recorded data set for the entire time of investigation, separated for each station by diel phase and their totals. PPM: porpoise positive minute; BPM: buzz-positive minute.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th>Diel</th><th>Recorded</th><th>Porpoise positive</th><th>PPM (% per complete</th><th>Click only</th><th>Buzz positive</th><th>BPM (%</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><td>phase</td><td>minutes</td><td>minutes (PPM)</td><td>observation period)</td><td>minutes</td><td>minutes (BPM)</td><td>per PPM)</td></tr><tr><th>Reef</th><td>Morning</td><td>278</td><td>92</td><td>33.1</td><td>66</td><td>26</td><td>28.3</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Day</td><td>3,163</td><td>1,239</td><td>39.2</td><td>876</td><td>363</td><td>29.3</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Evening</td><td>286</td><td>104</td><td>36.4</td><td>68</td><td>36</td><td>34.6</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Night</td><td>1,793</td><td>622</td><td>34.7</td><td>436</td><td>186</td><td>29.9</td></tr><tr><th>Offshore</th><td>Morning</td><td>353</td><td>62</td><td>17.6</td><td>40</td><td>22</td><td>35.5</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Day</td><td>4,075</td><td>730</td><td>17.9</td><td>593</td><td>137</td><td>18.8</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Evening</td><td>351</td><td>78</td><td>22.2</td><td>64</td><td>14</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Night</td><td>3,019</td><td>550</td><td>18.2</td><td>370</td><td>180</td><td>32.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2018View details →

TABLE 2 in Preliminary assessment of community composition and phylogeographic relationships of the birds of the Meratus Mountains, south-east Borneo, Indonesia

<p>TABLE 2 Size comparison between six specimens of Meratus and five specimens of Sabah and Sarawak populations of Hill Blue Flycatcher <i>Cyornis banyumas</i>, including males and females. T-test values show significance of differences between the two groups. All measurements in mm.</p><table><thead><tr><th>Population</th><th>Culmen length</th><th>Culmen width</th><th>Culmen depth</th><th>Tail</th><th>Tarsus</th><th>Wing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Meratus (mean)</th><td>10.63</td><td>5.87</td><td>4.53</td><td>64.78</td><td>20.48</td><td>78.83</td></tr><tr><th>Meratus (s.d.)</th><td>0.37</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.35</td><td>2.86</td><td>1.24</td><td>2.19</td></tr><tr><th>Sabah and Sarawak (mean)</th><td>9.68</td><td>5.48</td><td>3.86</td><td>61.20</td><td>17.98</td><td>72.80</td></tr><tr><th>Sabah and Sarawak (s.d.)</th><td>0.22</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.14</td><td>1.43</td><td>1.32</td><td>1.60</td></tr><tr><th>T-test <i>P</i> value</th><td>0.001</td><td>0.038</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.024</td><td>0.009</td><td>0.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 10 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 10. Number of forest communities, and percent of total forest area by forest community in all measured plots across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Agroforest was not sampled in Palau, mangrove was not sampled in Guam or CNMI, and Montane rainforest only occurs in FSM.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Jurisdiction</b></th><th><b>Communities</b></th><th><b>Lowland [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Strand [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Agroforest [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Mangrove [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Montane [80%CI]</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>RMI</th><td>4</td><td>39.3% [27.2-51.4%]</td><td>27.5% [17.6-37.4%]</td><td>31.7% [21.4-42%]</td><td>1.5% [0-3.4%]</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><th>FSM</th><td>5</td><td>57.5% [51.2-63.8%]</td><td>2.8% [1-4.6%]</td><td>17.9% [13.1-22.7%]</td><td>17.1% [12.2-22%]</td><td>4.6% [1.8-7.4%]</td></tr><tr><th>Palau</th><td>3</td><td>84.1% [78.1-90.1%]</td><td>4.2% [1-7.4%]</td><td>-</td><td>11.7% [6.6-16.8%]</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><th>Guam</th><td>3</td><td>94.3% [90.3-98.3%]</td><td>2.6% [0-5.2%]</td><td>3.1% [0-7.1%]</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><th>CNMI</th><td>3</td><td>93% [87.8-98.2%]</td><td>6.3% [1.5-10.8%]</td><td>0.7% [0-1.6%]</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 7 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 7. Estimated percent of forest area with live canopy cover percent of greater than or equal to 50%, 80% and 90% across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Jurisdiction</b></th><th><b>% Forest area with canopy cover>=50% [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Canopy cover>=80% [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Canopy cover>=90% [80%CI]</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>RMI</th><td>92.3% [87.2-97.4%]</td><td>77.4% [68.3-86.5%]</td><td>50.1% [38-62.2%]</td></tr><tr><th>FSM</th><td>90.4% [86.4-90.8%]</td><td>52.5% [46-59%]</td><td>6.4% [3.2-9.6%]</td></tr><tr><th>Palau</th><td>92.7% [88.8-96.7%]</td><td>82.3% [76.6-88%]</td><td>61.6% [53.8-69.4%]</td></tr><tr><th>Guam</th><td>90.5% [85.3-95.7%]</td><td>62.9% [54.6-71.2%]</td><td>31.4% [23.9-38.9%]</td></tr><tr><th>CNMI</th><td>81.6% [72.8-90.4%]</td><td>58.9% [48.2-69.6%]</td><td>30.8% [20-41.6%]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 9 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 9. Number of live tree species per plot and total number of forest plots sampled for each forest community across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Forest community</b></th><th><b># of Tree species per plot [80%CI]</b></th><th><b># of Plots</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Lowland Rainforest</th><td>7.5 [7.1-7.9]</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><th>Montane Rainforest</th><td>7.5 [6-9]</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><th>Strand Forest</th><td>3.8 [3.3-4.3]</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><th>Agroforest</th><td>3.4 [3-3.8]</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><th>Mangrove</th><td>3.4 [2.7-4.1]</td><td>24</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 8 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 8. Estimated percent of endemic tree species, and number of endemic tree species inventoried across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Jurisdiction</b></th><th><b>% Endemic trees [80%CI]</b></th><th><b># of Endemic species</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>RMI</th><td>0%</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><th>FSM</th><td>23.6% [19.3-27.9%]</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><th>Palau</th><td>36.7% [32.4-41%]</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><th>Guam</th><td>18.4% [11.9-22.3%]</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><th>CNMI</th><td>17.1% [9.3-27.5%]</td><td>9</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 1 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 1. List of Micronesia Challenge terrestrial measures, FIA data used, and analyses performed to describe each measure. BA is basal area. N/A = indicator uses different units.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>MC Terrestrial Measure</b></th><th><b>FIA Data Used</b></th><th><b>Area or # of Trees</b></th><th><b>% of Forest or % of Trees</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><i>Human disturbance</i></th><td>Disturbance (human and fire)</td><td>Acreage</td><td>% of Forest area</td></tr><tr><th><i>Species diversity</i></th><td>Tree species per plot</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Dominant vascular plant species per plot</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Tree species: relative dominance</td><td>Square feet per acre</td><td>BA/BA of All Trees</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>% Cover of understory species</td><td>Acreage</td><td>% of Forest Area</td></tr><tr><th><i>Forest structure</i></th><td>Tree DBH (diameter at breast height)</td><td># of Trees</td><td>% by DBH class</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Tree height</td><td># of Trees</td><td>% by Height class</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Basal area</td><td>Square feet per acre</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Stem density (per plot and per acre)</td><td># of Trees per plot/acre</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th><i>Invasive species</i></th><td>Tree species</td><td># of Trees</td><td>% of All trees</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Invasive vegetation subplot cover</td><td>Acreage</td><td>% of Forest area</td></tr><tr><th><i>Forest cover</i></th><td>% Live canopy cover</td><td>Acreage</td><td>% of Forest area</td></tr><tr><th><i>Tree abundance</i></th><td>Tree species</td><td># of Trees</td><td>% of All trees</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Tree rank order: endemics and invasives</td><td># of Trees</td><td>% of All trees</td></tr><tr><th><i>Mangrove stem density</i></th><td>Stem density (per acre)</td><td># of Trees per acre</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><th><i>Mangrove basal area</i></th><td>Basal area</td><td>Square feet per acre</td><td>Relative dominance</td></tr><tr><th><i>Forest community</i></th><td>Forest community</td><td>Acreage</td><td>% of Forest area</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 6 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 6. Percent of forest area with invasive plant species present or covered with invasive plant species, and percent of all trees that are invasive across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Jurisdiction</b></th><th><b>Invasives present [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Covered in invasives [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Invasive trees [80%CI]</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>RMI</th><td>11.4% [4.9-17.9%]</td><td>1% [0-2%]</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th>FSM</th><td>49.2% [43.9-54.5%]</td><td>11.3% [9-13.6%]</td><td>5.4% [2.1-8.7%]</td></tr><tr><th>Palau</th><td>13.3% [9.1-17.5%]</td><td>0.9% [0.2-1.6%]</td><td>1.2% [0-2.4%]</td></tr><tr><th>Guam</th><td>85.7% [81.8-89.6%]</td><td>39.9% [34.5-45.3%]</td><td>30.1% [23.9-36.3%]</td></tr><tr><th>CNMI</th><td>84.9% [80.4-89.4%]</td><td>54.6% [44.2-65%]</td><td>43.6% [31.8-55.4%]</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2020View details →

Table 3 in Growth and Stand Density of Honduran Mahogany on Guam

<p>Table 3. DBH, height, and vigor of five mahogany trees planted in 1928 and included in surveys in 1992 and 2018-2019.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Tag No.</b></th><th><b>DBH (cm)</b></th><th><b>DBH (cm)</b></th><th><b>Height (m)</b></th><th><b>Vigor</b> <b>1</b></th><th><b>Remarks</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>(1992/2019)</th><td>(1992)</td><td>(2019)</td><td>(2019)</td><td>(2019)</td><td>(2019)</td></tr><tr><th>755/293</th><td>36.0</td><td>53.4</td><td>28</td><td>H</td><td>straight trunk, ample foilage</td></tr><tr><th>796/296</th><td>54.0</td><td>65.5</td><td>11</td><td>M</td><td>storm damage, trunk broken</td></tr><tr><th>789/298</th><td>49.3</td><td>86.5</td><td>27</td><td>H</td><td>straight trunk, ample foilage</td></tr><tr><th>787/302</th><td>46.4</td><td>64.7</td><td>16</td><td>H</td><td>straight trunk, ample foilage</td></tr><tr><th>788/303</th><td>47.6</td><td>61.5</td><td>5</td><td>L</td><td>storm damage, no crown</td></tr><tr><th>Average:</th><td>46.7</td><td>66.3</td><td>17.4</td><td>M-H</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><p><sup>1</sup> Vigor was estimated as H for high, M for medium, and L for low.</p>

Table 2 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 2. Source of largest forest disturbance by percent of forest area disturbed, and total percent of forest area affected by all disturbance types across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Jurisdiction</b></th><th><b>Largest disturbance type</b></th><th><b>% of Forest area [80% CI]</b></th><th><b>All disturbances [80% CI]</b></th><th><b>Endemics [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Most common understory species</b></th><th><b>% Forest area [80%CI]</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>RMI</th><td>Weather</td><td>4.3% [0-8.6%]</td><td>8.1% [2.3-13.9%]</td><td>0%</td><td><i>Cocos nucifera</i></td><td>11.1% [7.7-14.5%]</td></tr><tr><th>FSM</th><td>Human</td><td>21.2% [16.2-26.2%]</td><td>39.2% [33.5-45.7%]</td><td>8.3% [6.9-9.7%]</td><td><i>Hibiscus tiliaceus</i></td><td>8.1% [6.3-9.9%]</td></tr><tr><th>Palau</th><td>Weather</td><td>10.9% [5.6-16.2%]</td><td>25.1% [18.2-32%]</td><td>20.6% [17.9-23.3%]</td><td><i>Pinanga insignis</i></td><td>16.5% [13-20%]</td></tr><tr><th>Guam</th><td>Animals</td><td>29.8% [22.2-37.4%]</td><td>49.1% [40.8-57.4%]</td><td>6.9% [5-8.8%]</td><td><i>Hibiscus tiliaceus</i></td><td>9.9% [7.8-12%]</td></tr><tr><th>CNMI</th><td>Tree Disease</td><td>40.1% [33.1-47.1%]</td><td>67.7% [58.7-76.7%]</td><td>9.3% [5.8-12.8%]</td><td><i>Leucaena leucocephala</i></td><td>23.5% [17.9-29.1%]</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2020View details →

Table 1 in Growth and Stand Density of Honduran Mahogany on Guam

<p>Table 1. Results of a survey of 32 mature mahogany trees in a centrally located 0.21 hectare sample area at Piti Guns Unit, 2018.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Tree#</b></th><th><b>DBH (cm)</b></th><th><b>Ht (m)</b></th><th><b>Vigor</b></th><th><b>Remarks</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>281</th><td>72</td><td>12</td><td>M</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>282</th><td>36</td><td>17</td><td>M</td><td>Burn scar</td></tr><tr><th>283</th><td>78</td><td>17</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage</td></tr><tr><th>284</th><td>74</td><td>28</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>285</th><td>93</td><td>28</td><td>M</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>286</th><td>103</td><td>30</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>287</th><td>33</td><td>23</td><td>M</td><td>Twin trunks</td></tr><tr><th>288</th><td>30</td><td>22</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>289</th><td>32</td><td>18</td><td>M</td><td>Storm damage, no top</td></tr><tr><th>290</th><td>75</td><td>28</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>291</th><td>32</td><td>33</td><td>L</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>292</th><td>61</td><td>7</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage</td></tr><tr><th>293</th><td>53</td><td>28</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>294</th><td>62</td><td>28</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>295</th><td>89</td><td>28</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>296</th><td>66</td><td>11</td><td>M</td><td>Storm damage</td></tr><tr><th>297</th><td>32</td><td>7</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage</td></tr><tr><th>298</th><td>86</td><td>27</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>299</th><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage</td></tr><tr><th>300</th><td>66</td><td>12</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage</td></tr><tr><th>301</th><td>29</td><td>17</td><td>H</td><td>Twin trunks</td></tr><tr><th>302</th><td>65</td><td>16</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>303</th><td>54</td><td>5</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage, no top</td></tr><tr><th>304</th><td>67</td><td>3</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage, no top</td></tr><tr><th>305</th><td>43</td><td>12</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>306</th><td>47</td><td>7</td><td>L</td><td>Storm damage, no top</td></tr><tr><th>307</th><td>31</td><td>10</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>308</th><td>36</td><td>10</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>309</th><td>43</td><td>13</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>310</th><td>31</td><td>13</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>311</th><td>123</td><td>23</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>312</th><td>125</td><td>20</td><td>H</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 5 in Forest Status Across Micronesia from an Assessment of Micronesia Challenge Terrestrial Measures and Forest Inventory and Analysis Data

<p>Table 5. Mean tree DBH, height, stem density, and basal area for forest across Micronesia. CI: confidence interval, FSM: Federated States of Micronesia, RMI: Republic of Marshall Islands, CNMI: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Jurisdiction</b></th><th><b>DBH in inches [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Height in feet [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Stems/acre [80%CI]</b></th><th><b>Square Feet/acre [80%CI]</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>RMI</th><td>4 [3.3-4.7]</td><td>23.1 [20.5-25.7]</td><td>726 [556-896]</td><td>124 [112-136]</td></tr><tr><th>FSM</th><td>4.4 [4.1-4.7]</td><td>27.3 [26.3-28.3]</td><td>611 [558-664]</td><td>145 [132-158]</td></tr><tr><th>Palau</th><td>3.9 [3.8-4]</td><td>26.9 [25.7-28.1]</td><td>937 [866-1008]</td><td>143 [131-155]</td></tr><tr><th>Guam</th><td>3.1 [3-3.2]</td><td>22.7 [22.2-23.6]</td><td>1014 [885-1143]</td><td>84 [78-90]</td></tr><tr><th>CNMI</th><td>2.8 [2.5-3.1]</td><td>20.8 [19.9-21.7]</td><td>1392 [1148-1636]</td><td>84 [72-96]</td></tr></tbody></table>

opencc-zeroSep 2024View details →

Table S1: Processed, filtered, and supplemented data

<p>Cleaned and processed data used for analysis in "β-Lactamase Diversity in <em>Acinetobacter Baumannii</em>" by Andrew R. Mack, Andrea M. Hujer, Maria F. Mojica, Magdalena A. Taracila, Michael Feldgarden, Daniel H. Haft, William Klimke, Arjun B. Prasad, and Robert A. Bonomo. Derived from National Center for Biotechnology Information databases on September 9th, 2024.</p>

Table 4 in Influence of Mycorrhizae and Irrigation on Growth and Mineral Uptake by Corn (Zea mays L.) Seedlings in a Calcareous Soil

<p>Table 4. Analysis of variance for micronutrient (Fe, Mn, B, Cu, and Zn) uptake by shoots of corn seedlings. Numbers are P values with F statistics in parentheses. Plants were grown in Guam cobbly clay soil, inoculated or not inoculated with <i>Glomus aggregatum</i> and provided one of four levels of water.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th><b>Micronutrients</b></th><th></th><th></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Source</b></th><td><i>df</i></td><td>Fe</td><td>Mn</td><td>B</td><td>Cu</td><td>Zn</td></tr><tr><th>Water (W) *</th><td>3</td><td>0.75 (0.36)</td><td><0.01 (9.57)</td><td>0.22 (1.67)</td><td>0.12 (0.89)</td><td><0.05 (7.23)</td></tr><tr><th>Inoculation (I)</th><td>1</td><td><0.001 (31.16)</td><td><0.001 (169.46)</td><td><0.001 (69.93)</td><td><0.001 (38.63)</td><td><0.001 (436.02)</td></tr><tr><th>W × I</th><td>3</td><td>0.88 (0.37)</td><td>0.18 (1.83)</td><td>0.65 (0.62)</td><td>0.59 (0.91)</td><td>0.24 (1.29)</td></tr></tbody></table><p>*Water treatment (W) was tested against main-plot error while both inoculation (I) and interaction (W × I) were tested against the sub-plot error.</p>

Table 5 in Influence of Mycorrhizae and Irrigation on Growth and Mineral Uptake by Corn (Zea mays L.) Seedlings in a Calcareous Soil

<p>Table 5. Correlation analysis of plant growth parameters (shoot biomass, root biomass, leaf width, SPAD chlorophyll reading) and uptake of macro- and microelements in leaf tissues.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th><b>Macroelements</b></th><th><b>plant)</b></th><th></th><th></th><th><b>Microelements</b></th><th><b>plant)</b></th><th></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Growth parameter</b></th><td>N</td><td>P</td><td>K</td><td>Mg</td><td>Ca</td><td>Fe</td><td>Mn</td><td>B</td><td>Cu</td><td>Zn</td></tr><tr><th>Shoot biomass (g)</th><td>0.8873</td><td>0.9521</td><td>0.9482</td><td>0.9746</td><td>0.9551</td><td>0.7587</td><td>0.9439</td><td>0.8959</td><td>0.8534</td><td>0.9321</td></tr><tr><th>Root biomass (g)</th><td>0.8258</td><td>0.9079</td><td>0.9150</td><td>0.9452</td><td>0.9497</td><td>0.7199</td><td>0.9112</td><td>0.9358</td><td>0.7390</td><td>0.8730</td></tr><tr><th>Leaf width (cm)</th><td>0.8569</td><td>0.9067</td><td>0.9394</td><td>0.9251</td><td>0.8954</td><td>0.8011</td><td>0.8957</td><td>0.8779</td><td>0.8478</td><td>0.9030</td></tr><tr><th>Chlorophyll (SPAD)</th><td>0.852</td><td>0.8211</td><td>0.8664</td><td>0.8104</td><td>0.7893</td><td>0.7284</td><td>0.7616</td><td>0.7377</td><td>0.7400</td><td>0.8377</td></tr></tbody></table><p>All correlations are highly significant at P <, Pearson.</p>

Table 3 in Influence of Mycorrhizae and Irrigation on Growth and Mineral Uptake by Corn (Zea mays L.) Seedlings in a Calcareous Soil

<p>Table 3. Analysis of variance for macronutrient (N, P, K, Mg and Ca) uptake by shoots of corn seedlings. Numbers are P values with F statistics in parentheses. Plants were grown in Guam cobbly clay soil, inoculated or not inoculated with <i>Glomus aggregatum</i>, and provided one of four levels of water.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th><b>Macronutrients</b></th><th></th><th></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Source</b></th><td><i>df</i></td><td>N</td><td>P</td><td>K</td><td>Mg</td><td>Ca</td></tr><tr><th>Water (W)*</th><td>3</td><td><0.05 (4.19)</td><td><0.05 (6.06)</td><td><0.01 (6.23)</td><td><0.01 (8.03)</td><td><0.01 (6.75)</td></tr><tr><th>Inoculation (I) 1</th><td><0.001 (159.51)</td><td><0.001 (437.94)</td><td><0.001 (816.51)</td><td><0.001 (364.49)</td><td><0.001 (116.39)</td></tr><tr><th>W × I</th><td>3</td><td>0.27 (2.30)</td><td>0.07 (2.70)</td><td>0.37 (0.95)</td><td>0.08 (2.44)</td><td>0.18 (2.27)</td></tr></tbody></table><p>*Water treatment (W) was tested against main-plot error while both inoculation (I) and interaction (W × I) were tested against the sub-plot error.</p>

Table 2 in Influence of Mycorrhizae and Irrigation on Growth and Mineral Uptake by Corn (Zea mays L.) Seedlings in a Calcareous Soil

<p>Table 2. Analysis of variance for shoot biomass, root biomass, leaf width, and SPAD chlorophyll reading of corn seedlings. Numbers are P values with F statistics in parentheses. Plants were grown in Guam cobbly clay soil, inoculated or not inoculated with <i>Glomus aggregatum</i>, and provided one of four water treatments.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th><b>Growth parameters</b></th><th></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td>Shoot biomass</td><td>Root biomass</td><td>Leaf width</td><td>SPAD chlorophyll</td></tr><tr><th><b>Source</b></th><td><i>df</i></td><td>(g/plant)</td><td>(g/plant)</td><td>(cm)</td><td>reading</td></tr><tr><th>Water (W)*</th><td>3</td><td><0.01 (12.52)</td><td><0.01 (11.73)</td><td><0.01 (10.19)</td><td>0.62 (3.77)</td></tr><tr><th>Inoculation (I)</th><td>1</td><td><0.001 (406.63)</td><td><0.001 (272.41)</td><td><0.001 (195.20)</td><td><0.001 (234.03)</td></tr><tr><th>W × I</th><td>3</td><td><0.01 (6.06)</td><td><0.05 (4.09)</td><td>0.44 (0.97)</td><td><0.01 (1.68)</td></tr></tbody></table><p>*Water treatment (W) was tested against main-plot error while both inoculation (I) and interaction (W × I)</p><p>were tested against the sub-plot error.</p>