List of phyla which showed significant (10% false discovery rate) response to land-use change (LUC).
. | . | . | . | Average relative abundance (%) ± SD . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | . | . | Corrected . | . | Response . | |
LUC type . | Phlyum . | P-value . | P-value . | Old LU . | New LU . | to LUC . |
Cropland to grassland | Verrucomicrobia | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.53 ± 0.33 | 1.13 ± 0.81 | Increase |
Cropland to forest | Bacteroidetes | 0.006 | 0.049 | 0.82 ± 0.55 | 0.14 ± 0.16 | Decrease |
Nitrospirae | 0.011 | 0.064 | 0.70 ± 0.70 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | Decrease | |
Proteobacteria | 0.004 | 0.037 | 35.22 ± 6.48 | 35.41 ± 12.82 | Increase | |
Grassland to cropland | Gemmatimonadetes | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.26 ± 0.14 | 0.96 ± 0.55 | Increase |
Planctomycetes | 0.009 | 0.060 | 0.82 ± 0.38 | 0.63 ± 0.23 | Decrease | |
Verrucomicrobia | 0.003 | 0.037 | 2.46 ± 1.58 | 0.89 ± 0.38 | Decrease | |
Grassland to forest | None | – | – | – | – | – |
. | . | . | . | Average relative abundance (%) ± SD . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | . | . | Corrected . | . | Response . | |
LUC type . | Phlyum . | P-value . | P-value . | Old LU . | New LU . | to LUC . |
Cropland to grassland | Verrucomicrobia | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.53 ± 0.33 | 1.13 ± 0.81 | Increase |
Cropland to forest | Bacteroidetes | 0.006 | 0.049 | 0.82 ± 0.55 | 0.14 ± 0.16 | Decrease |
Nitrospirae | 0.011 | 0.064 | 0.70 ± 0.70 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | Decrease | |
Proteobacteria | 0.004 | 0.037 | 35.22 ± 6.48 | 35.41 ± 12.82 | Increase | |
Grassland to cropland | Gemmatimonadetes | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.26 ± 0.14 | 0.96 ± 0.55 | Increase |
Planctomycetes | 0.009 | 0.060 | 0.82 ± 0.38 | 0.63 ± 0.23 | Decrease | |
Verrucomicrobia | 0.003 | 0.037 | 2.46 ± 1.58 | 0.89 ± 0.38 | Decrease | |
Grassland to forest | None | – | – | – | – | – |
The P-values were derived from paired t-tests and corrected according to the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Only phyla that had at least 0.20% average relative abundance in either the reference or the conversion plots of a LUC type were included in the analysis.
List of phyla which showed significant (10% false discovery rate) response to land-use change (LUC).
. | . | . | . | Average relative abundance (%) ± SD . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | . | . | Corrected . | . | Response . | |
LUC type . | Phlyum . | P-value . | P-value . | Old LU . | New LU . | to LUC . |
Cropland to grassland | Verrucomicrobia | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.53 ± 0.33 | 1.13 ± 0.81 | Increase |
Cropland to forest | Bacteroidetes | 0.006 | 0.049 | 0.82 ± 0.55 | 0.14 ± 0.16 | Decrease |
Nitrospirae | 0.011 | 0.064 | 0.70 ± 0.70 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | Decrease | |
Proteobacteria | 0.004 | 0.037 | 35.22 ± 6.48 | 35.41 ± 12.82 | Increase | |
Grassland to cropland | Gemmatimonadetes | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.26 ± 0.14 | 0.96 ± 0.55 | Increase |
Planctomycetes | 0.009 | 0.060 | 0.82 ± 0.38 | 0.63 ± 0.23 | Decrease | |
Verrucomicrobia | 0.003 | 0.037 | 2.46 ± 1.58 | 0.89 ± 0.38 | Decrease | |
Grassland to forest | None | – | – | – | – | – |
. | . | . | . | Average relative abundance (%) ± SD . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | . | . | Corrected . | . | Response . | |
LUC type . | Phlyum . | P-value . | P-value . | Old LU . | New LU . | to LUC . |
Cropland to grassland | Verrucomicrobia | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.53 ± 0.33 | 1.13 ± 0.81 | Increase |
Cropland to forest | Bacteroidetes | 0.006 | 0.049 | 0.82 ± 0.55 | 0.14 ± 0.16 | Decrease |
Nitrospirae | 0.011 | 0.064 | 0.70 ± 0.70 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | Decrease | |
Proteobacteria | 0.004 | 0.037 | 35.22 ± 6.48 | 35.41 ± 12.82 | Increase | |
Grassland to cropland | Gemmatimonadetes | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.26 ± 0.14 | 0.96 ± 0.55 | Increase |
Planctomycetes | 0.009 | 0.060 | 0.82 ± 0.38 | 0.63 ± 0.23 | Decrease | |
Verrucomicrobia | 0.003 | 0.037 | 2.46 ± 1.58 | 0.89 ± 0.38 | Decrease | |
Grassland to forest | None | – | – | – | – | – |
The P-values were derived from paired t-tests and corrected according to the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Only phyla that had at least 0.20% average relative abundance in either the reference or the conversion plots of a LUC type were included in the analysis.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.