“extremely significant”

Statistical significance was considered to be significant ( P < 0.05) and extremely significant ( P < 0.01).

Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference compared with TMV, “ ∗ ” indicate a significant difference ( P < 0.05) and “ ∗∗ ” indicate an extremely significant difference ( P < 0.01).

A significant difference was considered at P < 0.05 and extremely significant at P < 0.01.

According to the results of the significance test, the trend is divided into three levels: extremely significant ( p < 0.01), significant ( p < 0.05), and insignificant ( p ≥ 0.05) [ 9 ]. 2.4.2.

There were extremely significant positive correlations between SOM and STN and SAK ( P < 0.01), and a significant positive correlation between SOM and SAP, with correlation coefficients of 0.90, 0.88, and 0.69, respectively.

Compared with the control group, the difference was extremely significant in the juglone treatment group ( p < 0.01).

Comparisons between groups were analyzed with the two-sample Student’s t test, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05 and extremely significant as p < 0.01.

Difference between two groups was determined at a significant difference p < 0.05 or at an extremely significant difference p < 0.01.

The correlation for 34 of these pairs was extremely significant ( P < 0.01).

The level of statistical significance was set to a significant difference ( p < 0.05) and an extremely significant difference ( p < 0.01).

The effect of hydroxymethylation on male precocious puberty was extremely significant ( P < 0.01 ) (Table 1 ), as well.

At the phylum level, significant interannual differences were observed: Campilobacterota showed extremely significant differences among the 3 years (0.001 < p ≤ 0.01), while 9 other phyla (including: Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi) exhibited super-significant differences ( p ≤ 0.001) ( Figure 2A ).

The β-diversity of gut microbiota showed extremely significant independent distribution between AG and BC (Anosim p < 0.01).

and showed an extremely significant positive correlation with SSa and SSd in the leaves of CBC3 (p < 0.01).

LS-HPC and starch were found to have extremely significant ( p < 0.01) and significant ( p < 0.05) effects on the bolus dissolution time, respectively.

Notably, there is an extremely significant linear relationship between the accumulation of N and K in grains and yield ( P <0.01) ( Figures 7A–H ); simultaneously, there is also an extremely significant linear relationship between K accumulation in stems and leaf sheaths and yield ( P <0.01) ( Figures 7A–H ). 4 Discussion 4.1 Respon

The increase rates for herb and shrub species were 6.77 and 1.76 times higher, respectively, than that for tree species, and the difference between the rates for herbs and shrubs was extremely significant ( P < 0.01).

The maximum ankle joint inversion angle in the CAI group was significantly smaller than that in the non-CAI group, and the difference between the two groups was extremely significant (t = − 3.006, P < 0.01).

Further analysis of these highly expressed miRNAs revealed that three of them (miR-497, miR-146a, and miR-193b) had extremely significant expression with downregulation ( P < 0.01).

A significant level of P < 0.05 and extremely significant level of P < 0.01 were used to find significant difference between treatments through the LSD test.

The results indicate an extremely significant difference in body size between the large and small pig populations in this study ( P < 0.01, P < 0.001).

The significance level was set at p < 0.05, with extremely significant results defined as p < 0.01.

Regarding the significance of interspecific associations: if < 3.841, the association is not significant ( P > 0.05); if 3.841 < < 6.635, the association is significant (0.01 < P < 0.05); if >6.635, the association is extremely significant ( P < 0.01).

As more interviewees chose relaxation and assess to nature in parks, taking these as the focus of the analysis, there was an extremely significant ( p < 0.01) positive correlation between the relaxation behaviors of park users with waterscape ( p = 0.002) and greenery landscapes ( p = 0.001) of the urban parks.

In all analyses, differences were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05 and extremely significant when p < 0.01.