Excerpts

However, in the experiment at the continental scale, the presence/absence of the bacteria was marginally significant for an effect on the relative plant growth ( p = 0.083) and we observed the following trend: when the virus was absent, the presence of the bacteria limited plant growth, while in presence of the virus, the opposite was found (Figure 3B ).

Growth reduction due to WD was marginally significant in Cvi-0 ( P = 0.083), and not significant in Mt-0, Bay-0, Ler-1 and Est-1, which are accessions the most tolerant to WD ( Figure 4B ).

For irreversible bending rate, on the other hand, because of much greater variation in the data a difference between hardwoods and softwoods was only marginally significant (mean for hardwoods 2.30 ± 0.286 % per h and for softwoods 1.13 ± 0.083; 1-way ANOVA, F 1,197 = 3.0343, P = 0.0831).

However, females tended to have a higher growth rate after cutting, although the interaction between cutting and gender was only marginally significant ( P = 0.085; Table 3 and Supplementary Table S2 ).

Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between conventional and organic bogs at the 5% level (p = 0.026), and a marginally significant difference between conventional and wild bogs at the 10% level (p = 0.087).

The genotype × parental treatment interaction effect was significant for total leaf area and mean single-leaf area ( Table 1 , p = 0.0292 and 0.0536, respectively), and the genotype × offspring treatment interaction effect was significant or marginally significant for all traits ( Table 1 , 0.0283 ≤ p ≤ 0.0879).

A similar observation (though only marginally significant, with p = 0.088) was made also for the data set as a whole, but the slopes were not significantly different between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants of M. sativa ( p = 0.30).

Specifically, total leaf area in arugula and stem length in romaine lettuce showed significant three-way interactions, and stem length of arugula was also interactively regulated by these environmental factors with marginal significance ( p = 0.0880) ( Figure 3 ).

A marginally significant correlation between pairwise F ST and geographic distance (r = 0.45, p = 0.088; Supplementary Table 4 ; Supplementary Figure 3 ) suggested weak isolation-by-distance. 3.2.

However, this result was only marginally significant ( F -test, p = 0.089, Supplementary Table S5 ) and once again the statistical significance was lost at 28 dpa ( Supplementary Table S6 ), even though the ratio in expression levels remained at approximately 10:1.

Of the three remaining metabolic classes, “Energy metabolism (EM)” showed borderline significant enrichment (1.217-fold, adjusted p -value = 0.09), while “Lipid metabolism (LM)” and “Glycan biosynthesis and metabolism (GBM)” showed no discernable enrichment (Table 2 ).

Furthermore, trees from the white sand forest had marginally significant (p = 0.09) slower leaf traits compared to trees from the river terrace, and this relationship was more evident (p = 0.04) in isoprene non-emitters.

HTR analysis identified many genomic regions that were not detected with individual SNP-based SLMM and MLMM approaches and showed highly significant SNP associations (−log 10 P-value = 10.43–19.15) for AB resistance, accounting for moderate to high phenotypic variation (19.95–25.39%, Table 3 ).

The exotic allele also increased single grain weight, thousand kernel weight, spike number, and biomass with a significant increase in single grain weight in NIL pair 3 (p ≤ 0.001, 12.2%), thousand kernel weight in NIL pair 3 and 4 (p = 0.023, 2.9–11.0%), and biomass in NIL pair 1 (p = 0.013) and marginally significant differences in NIL pair 3 (p = 0.093).

Herbivore-mediated selection on flowering start date was detected in populations 4 (marginally significant, Δβ herb ± SE = 0.13 ± 0.102, P = 0.094), 5 and 6 ( Figure 3B , Supplementary Figures 2A,B,C , and Supplementary Table 6 ).

However, both treatments resulted in on-average increases to yield ( Figure 1A ), which included a marginally significant 1.17-fold increase for BC1 (p = 0.097), and a significant 2.22-fold increase for BC2 (p = 0.003).

In Gacyacyari (local variety), only marginally significant (p< 0.1) increases of δ 13 C were found for soluble sugar in the YFEL and cellulose in lower leaf for plants under water deficit.

Six of 10 humic treatments within the fields responded positively ( P < 0.07), and the positive responses of two more treatments approached significance at the benchmark of P = 0.10.

On day 173 in 2015, we detected a marginally significant positive dependence of g s and T r on soil water content ( P < 0.1; Figure 3 ), while the relationships between soil water content and A were not statistically significant ( P = 0.531; Figure 3 ).

In the case of the CO 2 experiment, a t-test conducted at the final harvest revealed that the actual shoot dry mass for the two treatments was only marginally significant (P = 0.10).

The linear regressions were considered significant when P < 0.05 and marginally significant when P < 0.1.

These genera showed an enrichment trend in ILN1 relative to ILN0, ILN2, and ILN3 treatments, and statistical analysis revealed a marginally significant response (0.05 < P < 0.1) of Ascobolus ( P = 0.059) and Iodophanus ( P = 0.063) to the combined treatments of cropping pattern and nitrogen application rate.

RUE from InB to A7 only correlated marginally significant with the predictions of canopy A sat at A7 ( R 2 = 0.13, p < 0.1).

Genes were categorized into highly significant ( p < 0.001 and log 2 FC > 2), very significant ( p < 0.01 and log 2 FC > 1.5), significant up ( p < 0.05 and log 2 FC > 1.0), significant down (p < 0.05 and log 2 FC < -1.0), marginally significant ( p < 0.1 ) and not significant ( p ≥ 0.1 ).

Several crop parameters showed consistent positive responses to the humic product that were not quite significant at P ≤ 0.10 but would have been significant at less stringent thresholds.