Biodiversity Management under Cashew Agro-ecosystems in Central Africa: A case study from Cameroon
Table 4.
The index of diversity inCashew agroecosystems.
|
| Subdivision |
Ages (Years) |
ISH |
EQ |
DS |
IVI |
|
|
|
0–10 |
2.28 ± 0.07a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.75 ± 0.15a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
10–20 |
2.95 ± 0.06a |
0.99 ± 0.01a |
0.86 ± 0.12a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
| Bénoué |
+20 |
3.47 ± 0.17a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.93 ± 0.11a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
|
|
Mean |
2.90 ± 0.59A |
0.98 ± 0.05A |
0.84 ± 0.09A |
300 ± 57.47A |
|
|
|
0–10 |
2.29 ± 0.06a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.75 ± 0.15a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
| Faro |
10–20 |
2.70 ± 0.06a |
0.99 ± 0.01a |
0.80 ± 0.10a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
+20 |
3.42 ± 0.06a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.88 ± 0.14a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
|
|
Mean |
2.80 ± 0.57A |
0.98 ± 0.05A |
0.81 ± 0.06A |
300 ± 57.47A |
|
|
| Mayo-Loutii |
0–10 |
2.43 ± 0.05a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.78 ± 0.15a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
| 10–20 |
2.95 ± 0.09a |
0.99 ± 0.01a |
0.86 ± 0.12a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
| +20 |
3.43 ± 0.16a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.90 ± 0.17a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
| Mean |
2.93 ± 0.50A |
0.98 ± 0,05A |
0.84 ± 0.06A |
300 ± 57.47A |
|
|
|
0–10 |
2.18 ± 0.09a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.70 ± 0.18a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
10–20 |
2.25 ± 0.09a |
0.99 ± 0.01a |
0.72 ± 0.12a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
| Mayo-Rey |
+20 |
3.29 ± 0.06a |
0.98 ± 0.01a |
0.82 ± 0.15a |
300 ± 57.47a |
|
|
|
Mean |
2.57 ± 0.62A |
0.98 ± 0.05A |
0.74 ± 0.06A |
300 ± 57.47A |
|
|
Note: ISH: Shannon's Index; EQ: Piélou index; DS: Simpson's Index; IVI: Importance Value Index. The assigned values of the same letter are not statistically different (p> 0.05, Duncan’s test).
|
|
