In total, 2,069 mites belonging to 28 families and 87 species/morphospecies were sampled (Table 1). The most representative families were Phytoseiidae (32.4%), Phytoptidae (13%), Cunaxidae (7.7%), Tetranychidae (5.6%) and Tydeidae (4.9%). According to our richness estimates, the quantity of mites sampled throughout this study was satisfactory, considering that the estimated richness was 96 ± 6 s.e.. Thus, the richness found in this work indicates that few species were no longer collected. Environmental variability (temperature and relative humidity) between municipalities and collection periods with the respective quantity of mites collected (Fig. 2). The most abundant species were Amblyseius sp.1, A. amazoniensis, Acaphyllisa sp., Davisella sp., I. zuluagai, R. johnstoni, S. tomentosus.
Table 1
Acarofauna collected in the Açaí culture during the Dry and Rainy periods, in the municipalities of Augusto Corrêa and Bragança, state of Pará, Brazil. (N - total number of mites sampled).
Families (N) | Species/morphospecies | Augusto Corrêa | Bragança | N | % |
Dry | Rainy | Dry | Rainy | | |
| Cultivated | Native | Cultivated | Native | Cultivated | Native | Cultivated | Native | | |
Acaridae (88) | Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Rechiacaros sp. | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 83 | 4.0 |
| Tyrophagus putrescentiae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.1 |
Ameroseiidae (1) | Ameroseius sp. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
Ascidae (18) | Asca sp.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.14 |
| Asca sp.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 0.4 |
| Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 0.3 |
Bdellidae (33) | Bdella uckermanni | 1 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 1.2 |
| Hexabdella sp. 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0.3 |
| Trachymolgus sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
Caligonellidae (5) | Neognatus sp. | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.2 |
Cheyletidae (20) | Cheletomimus (H.) bakeri | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0.2 |
| Cheletomimus (H.) darwin | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0.6 |
| Cheletomimus (H.) duosetosus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0.1 |
| Cheletomimus (H.) wellsi | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
Cunaxidae (159) | Armascirus amazoniensis | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 26 | 28 | 62 | 3.0 |
| Cunaxatricha n. sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.2 |
| Neobonzia sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.2 |
| Neocunaxoides ovatus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 20 | 1.0 |
| Scutopalus tomentosus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 9 | 32 | 17 | 68 | 3.3 |
Diptilomiopidae (62) | Davisella sp. | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 13 | 62 | 3.0 |
Eriophydae (81) | Acaphyllisa sp. | 0 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 27 | 81 | 3.9 |
Erythraeidae (1) | Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 |
Eupalopsellidae (5) | Eupalopsellus sp. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0.2 |
Eupodidae (27) | N. genus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 27 | 1.3 |
Glycyphagidae (16) | Lepidoglyphus sp. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 16 | 0.8 |
Iolinidae (67) | Parapronematus sp. | 15 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 31 | 1.5 |
| Pseudopronematus sp. | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 4 | 36 | 1.7 |
Laelapidae (5) | Pseudoparasitus sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.1 |
Olagamasidae (5) | Olagamasidae | Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0.2 |
Oribatida (99) | Oribatida | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 81 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 99 | 4.8 |
Parholaspididae (1) | Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
Phytoptidae (268) | Retracus johnstoni | 0 | 0 | 150 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 82 | 30 | 268 | 13.0 |
Phytoseiidae (677) | Amazoniaseius imparisetosus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0.2 |
| Amblydromalus sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Amblydromalus itacoatiarensis | 24 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 51 | 2.5 |
| Amblyseius n. sp.1 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 18 | 15 | 99 | 147 | 7.1 |
| Amblyseius n. sp.2 | 11 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 22 | 15 | 7 | 8 | 76 | 3.7 |
| Amblyseius n. sp.3 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 58 | 0 | 34 | 136 | 6.6 |
| Amblyseius n. sp.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 22 | 1.1 |
| Amblyseius largoensis | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0.6 |
| Amblyseius tamatavensis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Euseius alatus | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Euseius inouei | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.2 |
| Iphiseiodes quadripilis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Iphiseiodes zuluagai | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 42 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 2.8 |
| Leonseius regularis | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0.7 |
| Metaseiulus (M.) ferlai | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| n. genus sp.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0.1 |
| Paraphytoseius orientalis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Phytoscutus sexpilis | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Proprioseiopsis neotropicus | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0.2 |
| Typhlodromips n. sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0.1 |
| Typhlodromips mangleae | 21 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 36 | 1.7 |
| Typhlodromus (T) n. sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0.4 |
| Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 33 | 88 | 4.3 |
Stigmaeidae (17) | Agistemus brasiliensis | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0.3 |
| Agistemus n. sp.1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.2 |
| Zetzellia quasagistemus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Immature | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0.2 |
Tarsonemidae (15) | Ceratarsonemus sp. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0.2 |
| Tarsonemus sp.2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Xenotarsonemus sp.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Xenotarsonemus sp.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.1 |
| Xenotarsonemus sp.3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 0.3 |
Tenuipalpidae (90) | Brevipalpus yothersi | 0 | 0 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 1.8 |
| Brevipalpus sp.1 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0.7 |
| Tenuipalpus sp.1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0.5 |
| Immature | 0 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 1.4 |
Tetranychidae (115) | Oligonychus sp. | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 9 | 0 | 15 | 82 | 4.0 |
| Tetranychus urticae | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15 | 0.7 |
| Tetranychus aff. palmarum | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 0.9 |
Triophtydeidae (42) | Triophtydeus lebruni | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 31 | 1.5 |
| Triophtydeus sp. | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 0.3 |
| Triophtydeidae | Immature | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0.2 |
Tuckerellidae (47) | Tuckerella ornata | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 47 | 2.3 |
Tydeidae (101) | Brachytydeus formosa | 1 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 41 | 2.0 |
| Pretydeus sp.1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0.2 |
| Pretydeus sp.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Pseudolorryia sp.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 16 | 0.8 |
| Pseudolorryia sp.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0.5 |
| Tydeus sp.1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0.3 |
| Tydeus sp.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0.3 |
| Immature | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0.7 |
Winterschmidtiidae (4) | Oulenzia sp. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.1 |
| Immature | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| | Augusto Corrêa | Bragança | | |
| | Dry | Rainy | Dry | Rainy | | |
| | Cultivated | Native | Cultivated | Native | Cultivated | Native | Cultivated | Native | | |
| Diversity | | | | | | | | | | |
| Richness | 25 | 19 | 25 | 0 | 40 | 42 | 28 | 50 | | |
| Abundance | 196 | 63 | 403 | 0 | 409 | 225 | 308 | 465 | | |
| Dominance | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.08 | | |
| Shannon-Wiener | 2.47 | 2.55 | 2.27 | 0.00 | 2.93 | 2.95 | 2.52 | 3.10 | | |
| Uniformity | 0.47 | 0.68 | 0.39 | 0.00 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.44 | | |
| Equitability | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 0.00 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.79 | | |
Mite abundance and diversity. The data indicate that more mites were sampled in the rainy period (n = 1,176) than in the dry period (n = 893), or around 32% more mites in the rainiest and most humid period than in the hottest period (Fig. 3A, Table 1). Despite a greater abundance of mites in the rainy season, greater richness was observed in the dry season with 73 species, while in the rainy season there were 65, that is, in the dry season 12.3% more species/morphospecies were sampled than in the rainy season. (Fig. 3B). Due to the abundance of mites collected throughout this study in açaí crops, it was observed that both periods, the richness was similar between them and, possibly, there was a very efficient and satisfactory sampling of the diversity of mites in açaí crops (Fig. 3B).
Regarding the Hill diversity profile, the dry period was more diverse, presenting higher values along the entire x axis for the Hill diversity order parameters (Fig. 3C). However, the pattern of Hill's diversity profile was similar between both periods. This suggests that although the mite community in açaí crops is more diverse in the dry season, the rainy season was not far behind. This highlights similar dynamics between both mite communities, whether when less abundant (rare) species are more important for this estimate, when the scale moves to the left, that is, when more abundant taxa gain greater relevance moving towards the right. of the scale on the x-axis.
The ordination of the mite community composition in relation to the period showed a satisfactory NMDS fit (stress = 0.10, non-metric fit [R2] = 0.98). PERMANOVA analysis indicated a significant difference in the structure of the mite community between the dry and rainy periods (F(1, 72) = 3.85, R2 = 0.05, P = 0.01. Figure 3D). Despite the statistical significance, the coefficient of determination (R2) was quite low, requiring caution when interpreting the proportion of variability explained by the NMDS. No statistical difference was observed in the homogeneity of dispersion between these groups (F (1,71) = 0.94, P = 0.32), indicating that the PERMANOVA result was not influenced by variability within the groups.
Out of a total of 87 acarine species, 11 of them played a significant role in the NMDS ordination (Table 2. Figure 3D), highlighting the importance of these species/morphospecies. Regarding the four ecological factors, it was observed that three of them had a significant contribution to this ordering (Fig. 3D). Thus, temperature (R2 = 0.24, P = 0.001), relative humidity (R2 = 0.11, P = 0.015) and atmospheric pressure (R2 = 0.11, P = 0.008) were relevant in determining the community structure according to the NMDS.
Table 2
Mite species with significant contribution to the NMDS ordination based on community structure in the dry and rainy periods (Fig. 2D).
Species/morphospecies | p-value |
Ascidae | Immature | 0.01 |
Bdella uckermanni | 0.01 |
Armascirus amazoniensis | 0.01 |
Neocunaxoides ovatus | 0.03 |
Scutopalus tomentosus | 0.03 |
Davisella sp. | 0.03 |
Lepidoglyphus sp. | 0.04 |
Retracus johnstoni | 0.01 |
Amblyseius n. sp1 | 0.04 |
Brevipalpus sp.1 | 0.02 |
Tuckerella ornata | 0.02 |
Mite abundance and diversity. The data indicate that in Bragança there was greater abundance (n = 1,407), while Augusto Corrêa contributed a total of 662 individuals (Fig. 4A). Bragança recorded more than twice the acarine abundance than Augusto Corrêa, making a percentage 112, 39% higher. Similarly, Bragança presented a greater richness, totaling 78 species, while Augusto Corrêa presented 48 species (Fig. 4B). This represents a percentage difference of 62.5% more mite species in Bragança. The rarefaction curve shows that a slightly greater sampling effort in Bragança could collect some more species, not collected in this study, while the Augusto Corrêa rarefaction curve practically achieved a satisfactory sampling despite having collected fewer individuals and presenting lower richness. (Fig. 4B).
Hill's diversity profile indicates antagonistic situations when rare species/morphospecies or abundant species/morphospecies are considered. For example, when rare species are more important for this estimate, Bragança presents greater diversity in the mite community, indicating that the greater number of individuals collected in this location may have contributed to increasing the structural complexity of the community, contributing species/morphospecies that would be difficult to collect. with a smaller number of individuals (Fig. 4C). However, when observing the Shannon-Wiener index (exponential of entropy) represented by the number one, on the x axis, both municipalities present a very similar diversity to each other. From this point, towards the right of the graph, when more abundant species/taxa are more relevant, the acarine community of Augusto Corrêa becomes more diverse than that of Bragança. Therefore, unlike the diversity profile between periods (dry vs. rainy), where the difference in diversity was less pronounced, in the case of municipalities, the differences were marked to the point where the diversity of the mite community changed. Thus, when more abundant species/morphospecies have greater weight in the analysis of Hill's diversity profile, municipalities assume an opposite role than when rare species are considered.
The ordination of the mite community composition in relation to the municipality also presented a satisfactory fit in the NMDS (stress = 0.10, non-metric adjustment [R2] = 0.98). PERMANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in the structure of the mite community between Augusto Corrêa and Bragança (F(1, 72) = 3.86, R2 = 0.05, P = 0.01. Figure 4D). Again, the coefficient of determination (R2) was quite low, indicating that the variability explained by the NMDS in comparison with the analysis between periods must be analyzed with caution since other factors, not analyzed in this work, may help to explain the difference in mite community between the two municipalities. No statistically significant differences were found in dispersion homogeneity within groups (F (1,71) = 3.55, P = 0.053). Therefore, the results indicate that PERMANOVA was not affected by intra-group variability.
Analyzing the 87 species/morphospecies, we observed that 13 of them played a significant role in the ordination of the NMDS (Table 3. Figure 4D). When we consider ecological factors, again, temperature (R2 = 0.24, P = 0.001), relative humidity (R2 = 0.11, P = 0.009) and atmospheric pressure (R2 = 0.11, P = 0.009) showed significance for this analysis.
Table 3
Mite species with significant contribution to the NMDS ordination based on community structure in Augusto Corrêa and Bragança (Fig. 4D).
Species/morphospecies | p-value |
Ascidae | Immature | 0.01 |
Bdella uckermanni | 0.02 |
Neognatus sp. | 0.04 |
Armascirus amazoniensis | 0.03 |
Neocunaxoides ovatus | 0.03 |
Scutopalus tomentosus | 0.02 |
Lepidoglyphus sp. | 0.03 |
Retracus johnstoni | 0.02 |
Amblyseius n. sp1 | 0.03 |
Brevipalpus sp.1 | 0.01 |
Tenuipalpidae | Immature | 0.02 |
Tuckerella ornata | 0.02 |
Brachytydeus formosa | 0.03 |
Abundance and diversity by cultivation. The results demonstrate that cultivated açaí palm trees had a greater number of mites (n = 1,316) than native ones (n = 753) (Fig. 5A, Table 1). Therefore, the cultivated açaí trees analyzed in this study had a 74.7% higher percentage of mites than those of native ones. However, native plantations showed slightly greater richness (n = 70, or 6%) than those cultivated (n = 66). In the case of the rarefaction curve, the data indicate that, although there is a need for a relatively small sampling effort for native açaí plantations and a slightly larger one for cultivated ones, in relation to the abundance of mites to be collected (Fig. 5B). It also suggests that wealth will not increase drastically, suggesting that the sampling effort for this work was sufficient.
Contrary to Hill's diversity profiles presented previously, this one related to the type of açaí planting (cultivated vs. native) suggests that the most discordant diversity parameter was species/morphospecies richness (parameter zero on the x-axis) (Fig. 5C). Therefore, we can assume that both mite communities behave practically the same in both types of plantations, remembering, however, that in cultivated plantations the mite abundance was much greater (74.7%) than in native ones.
The ordination of the mite community composition in relation to the type of açaí cultivation presented a satisfactory fit in the NMDS (stress = 0.10, non-metric adjustment [R2] = 0.98). PERMANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in mite community structure between cultivated and native plantings (F (1, 72) = 2.89, R2 = 0.03, P = 0.01. Figure 5D). Here, the coefficient of determination (R2) was slightly lower, indicating again that the variability explained by the NMDS, together with the analyzes between periods and municipalities, must be analyzed with caution as other factors, not analyzed in this work, can help to explain the difference in the mite community between the two types of açaí planting. Statistically significant differences were found in dispersion homogeneity within groups (F (1,71) = 4.15, P = 0.037) suggesting that PERMANOVA may have been affected more by variability within groups than between the two crop types of açaí.
Analyzing the 87 taxa, we observed that 14 of them played a significant role in the ordination of the NMDS (Table 4. Figure 5D). When we consider ecological factors, again, temperature (R2 = 0.28, P = 0.002), relative humidity (R2 = 0.11, P = 0.009) and atmospheric pressure (R2 = 0.11, P = 0.007) showed significance.
Table 4
Mite species with significant contribution to the NMDS ordination based on community structure in Augusto Corrêa and Bragança (Fig. 5D).
Species/morphospecies | p-value |
Ascidae | Immature | 0.01 |
Bdella uckermanni | 0.01 |
Neognatus sp. | 0.02 |
Armascirus amazoniensis | 0.01 |
Neocunaxoides ovatus | 0.02 |
Scutopalus tomentosus | 0.01 |
Davisella sp. | 0.02 |
Retracus johnstoni | 0.02 |
Amblyseius n. sp1 | 0.01 |
Brevipalpus yothersi | 0.03 |
Brevipalpus sp.1 | 0.03 |
Tenuipalpidae | Immature | 0.04 |
Tuckerella ornata | 0.01 |
Brachytydeus formosa | 0.04 |
Distribution in the plant. There was a difference in the number of mites collected between the different types of açaí planting (Table 5. Figure 6). Furthermore, our data indicate that there is a significant difference in the number of mites collected on the different açaí substrates (Table 6. Figure 7). The observed difference was detected between the basal substrates of cultivated açaí palms (higher quantity) and the apical substrate and native fruit (lower quantity). There was also a difference between the median substrate of cultivated açaí trees (larger quantity) with the same apical substrate and the fruit of native açaí trees (smaller quantity) and, finally, the median substrate (more mites) with the fruit of native açaí trees (less mites) (Fig. 7). However, there was no significant interaction between the types of plantations (Table 6).
Table 5
Results of the generalized linear mixed model (negative binomial) comparing the number of mites found on açaí plants.
Type of planting | Substrate | Average | Standard deviation |
Cultivated | Basal | 40 | 14 |
Native | Basal | 27 | 18 |
Cultivated | Median | 37 | 20 |
Native | Median | 34 | 25 |
Cultivated | Apical | 26 | 19 |
Native | Apical | 17 | 19 |
Cultivated | Fruit | 23 | 19 |
Native | Fruit | 13 | 13 |
Table 6
Results of the generalized linear mixed model (negative binomial) comparing the number of mites found on açaí plants.
Fixed effects | Χ2 | G.L. | p-value | |
Type of planting | 4.72 | 1 | 0.029* | |
Substrate | 17.3 | 3 | < 0.001*** | |
Substrate: Type of planting | 1.03 | 3 | 0.791 | |
Aleatory effects | Variance | D.P. | | |
Municipality | 0.000 | 0.000 | | |
Period | 0.271 | 0.521 | | |
Model selection | AICc1 | dAICc2 | G. L3 | Peso4 |
Negative binomial GLMM (chosen model) | 633.4. | 0.0 | 11 | 1 |
GLMM Poisson | 1102.2 | 468.8 | 10 | < 0.001 |
G.L.: degrees of freedom; p-value; probability of finding z values by chance. 1 AIC estimate; 2 Differences between AICs; 3 Degrees of freedom; 4 Weight of AICs. |