Appendix H. Probabilities that management schemes differ with respect to LUDIp, LUDIo and total LUDI: pristine (P), farmers’ (F), selectively cut (S), unmanaged (U), age-class forest of Fagus (AF), age-class forest of Quercus (AQ), age-class forest of Picea (APc), age-class forest of Pinus (Apn), continuous cover (C), coppice with standards (CS) and coppice (Co). Bold print indicates significant differences of P < 0.05.
LUDIp |
F |
S |
U |
AF |
AQ |
APc |
APn |
C |
Cs |
Co |
LUDIo |
F |
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.30 |
0.18 |
F |
S |
0.05 |
|
0.00 |
0.26 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
S |
U |
0.62 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
0.51 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.71 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
U |
AF |
0.92 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
|
0.02 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
AF |
AQ |
0.52 |
0.00 |
0.02 |
0.27 |
|
0.03 |
0.00 |
0.47 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
AQ |
APc |
0.23 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.46 |
|
0.10 |
0.16 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
APc |
APn |
0.11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.07 |
0.06 |
|
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
APn |
C |
0.11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.11 |
0.10 |
0.85 |
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
C |
Cs |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.22 |
0.30 |
|
0.87 |
Cs |
Co |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.41 |
|
Co |
LUDI |
F |
S |
U |
AF |
AQ |
APc |
APn |
C |
Cs |
F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
0.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AF |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AQ |
0.00 |
0.76 |
0.14 |
0.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
APc |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.88 |
0.42 |
0.06 |
|
|
|
|
APn |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.96 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.87 |
|
|
|
C |
0.00 |
0.18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.38 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
|
Cs |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.07 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
|
Co |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.14 |
0.58 |
0.48 |
0.06 |
0.22 |