Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content

Table. 2 The effects of site type (A–E; see text and legend of Fig. 1) and the likelihood of cold winter on the probability of pine sawfly damage. Parameter estimates (and standard deviation), with the p values of the tests of significance of the term, of the linear predictor of the GLM (see Eq. 1 in the “Data analysis” section) fitted on different data sets

From: Vulnerability to pine sawfly damage decreases with site fertility but the opposite is true with Scleroderris canker damage; results from Finnish ICP Forests and NFI data

 

ICP Forests Level 1

NFI 8 and NFI 9

NFI 10

Intercept (α, effect of B)

−3.34 (0.16)

−6.88 (0.16)

−4.48 (0.16)

Difference of A to B (βA)

−1.17 (0.40) p = 0.003

−13.2 (185.7) p = 0.94

−1.06 (0.59) p = 0.076

Difference of C to B (βC)

0.43 (0.17) p = 0.012

1.28 (0.14) p < 0.001

0.89 (0.17) p < 0.001

Difference of D to B (βD)

−1.37 (1.01) p = 0.176

−0.39 (0.33) p = 0.234

−0.64 (0.59) p = 0.279

Difference of E to B (βE)

0.91 (0.29) p = 0.002

1.19 (0.15) p < 0.001

0.45 (0.21) p = 0.030

Effect of the likelihood of cold winter (γ)

−3.75 (0.68) p < 0.001

3.80 (0.28) p < 0.001

−5.31 (0.68) p < 0.001

Back to article page

Annals of Forest Science

ISSN: 1297-966X