Table 1.
AZE b | District | %A.f c | %A.p d | Number of Isolates | cfu·g−1 Soil | Positive Rate (%) e | Soil pH | Soil Moisture (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range | Mean | ||||||||
SEC | Guangzhou | 100 | 0 | 20 | 0–399.6 | 27.8f | 36.7h | 6.28 | 21.08 |
Zhanjiang | 94 | 6 | 32 | 0–1666.7 | 170e | 56.7e | 5.13 | 15.35 | |
Yunfu | 94 | 6 | 33 | 0–5667.7 | 481.1c | 66.7d | 5.36 | 18.05 | |
Shantou | 100 | 0 | 13 | 0–133.3 | 19.9f | 36.7h | 6.12 | 20.15 | |
shaoguan | 100 | 0 | 17 | 0–2333.3 | 258.6d | 46.7f | 6.32 | 14.06 | |
YZR | Huanggang | 100 | 0 | 29 | 33.3–6660 | 1920b | 100a | 6.86 | 19.20 |
Xinzhou | 100 | 0 | 32 | 0–1000 | 174.3e | 83.3c | 5.66 | 17.53 | |
Xiaogan | 100 | 0 | 14 | 0–666.7 | 55.5f | 33.3j | 4.95 | 7.30 | |
Yicheng | 97 | 3 | 29 | 0–1000 | 297.5d | 96.7a | 6.79 | 11.29 | |
Xiangzhou | 100 | 0 | 23 | 0–16,665 | 2749.3a | 90b | 6.55 | 12.57 | |
YR | Qingdao | 92 | 8 | 24 | 0–300 | 52.2f | 30.0i | 4.78 | 7.84 |
Yantai | 47 | 53 | 15 | 0–233.3 | 16.7f | 23.3j | 5.30 | 14.52 | |
Linyi | 100 | 0 | 6 | 0–66.7 | 5.7f | 16.7k | 5.21 | 18.41 | |
Weifang | 90 | 10 | 21 | 0–200 | 24.4f | 40.0gh | 5.90 | 5.90 | |
Liaocheng | 100 | 0 | 19 | 0–166.7 | 33.7f | 43.3fg | 7.18 | 7.18 | |
NE | Dalian | 100 | 0 | 1 | 0–33.3 | 1.1f | 3.3l | 5.50 | 13.90 |
Jinzhou | 100 | 0 | 4 | 0–33.3 | 2.2f | 6.7l | 6.38 | 5.31 | |
Fuxin | 0 | 100 | 1 | 0–66.7 | 3.3f | 6.7l | 5.53 | 5.11 | |
Shenyang | 50 | 50 | 2 | 0–33.3 | 1.1f | 3.3l | 5.42 | 2.50 | |
Tieling | 100 | 0 | 3 | 0–33.3 | 4.4f | 13.2k | 4.7 | 13.24 |
a Means determined by Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05); values in a column followed by a different letter are significantly different; b SEC, Southeast coastal zone; YZR, the Yangtze River zone; YR, the Yellow River zone; and NE, the Northeast zone; c %A.f was the percentage of A. flavus in all isolates; d %A.p was the percentage of A. parasiticus in all isolates; e Positive rate (%) was the percentage of the soils which can isolate A. flavus in 30 soil sample of each district.