Table 1.

Comparison of relative abundance of the dominant orders within the phyla Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Proteobacteria among land uses^a

Organism	F or χ2b	df	P	Pairwise comparisonc
Acidobacteriad
Group 1-unclassified	2.88	3, 28	0.05	Unlogged > oil palm
Group 2	5.23	3, 28	0.005	Unlogged > twice-logged/oil palm
Group 3	3.28	3, 28	0.04	Unlogged > oil palm
Group 5	4.87	3, 28	0.01	Once-logged/twice-logged > oil palm
Actinobacteriae
Actinomycetales	8.24	3, 28	0.0004	Once-logged/twice-logged/unlogged < oil palm
Solirubrobacterales	13.8*	3	0.003	Once-logged/twice-logged < oil palm
Proteobacteriaf
Sphingomonadales	10.4*	3	0.01	Unlogged < oil palm

^aOnly orders for which significant differences were found are shown.

^bEffect of land use on relative abundance evaluated by linear or generalized linear model or by the Kruskal-Wallis test (*).

^cPairwise comparisons by post hoc Tukey test for linear/generalized linear models or P values Bonferroni-corrected for Kruskal-Wallis. Differences were considered significant at a P value of ≤0.05.

^dThe 10 most abundant orders comprised 94.4% of the sequences in this phylum.

^eActinomycetales, Solirubrobacterales, and unclassified orders comprised 99.3% of the sequences within Actinobacteria.

^fBurkholderiales, Myxococcales, Rhodospirillales, Rhizobiales, Sphingomonadales, unclassified orders within the Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Deltaproteobacteria classes, and unclassified orders comprised 90.6% of sequences within Proteobacteria.