Back to Article
Biodiversity Management under Cashew Agro-ecosystems in Central Africa: A case study from Cameroon
Open Journal of Agricultural Research
| Vol 1, Issue 2
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).