Table 2.

Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the data for morphotypes that divided the data set according to vitality (on the left) and tissue type (on the right).

Morphotype		Vitality, N = 768, DF = 2			Tissue type, N = 768, DF = 1
		-LogLikelihood	ChiSq	P > ChiSq	-LogLikelihood	ChiSq	P > ChiSq
MT1		0.75	1.49	0.47	0.97	1.94	0.16
MT2		0.81	1.62	0.44	1.39	2.78	0.10
MT3	∗∗	0.13	0.26	0.88	55.66	111.31	0.0000
MT4	∗∗	2.47	4.95	0.08	8.13	16.26	0.00000
MT5	∗∗	3.24	6.49	0.039	7.48	14.96	0.0000
MT7		0.81	1.62	0.44	1.39	2.78	0.10
MT8	∗∗∗	7.75	15.51	0.0004	4.88	9.77	0.0018
MT9	∗∗∗	4.42	8.83	0.012	2.78	5.57	0.018
MT10	∗∗∗	4.55	9.09	0.011	7.70	15.41	0.0000
MT11	∗∗∗	3.81	7.61	0.022	11.26	22.52	0.0000
MT12	∗∗∗	3.79	7.59	0.023	15.57	31.15	0.0000
MT13	∗∗	2.15	4.31	0.116	2.78	5.57	0.018
MT14	∗	6.83	13.65	0.0011	1.84	3.68	0.055
MT15		0.26	0.51	0.77	1.59	3.19	0.07
MT16	∗∗	1.63	3.25	0.20	2.78	5.57	0.018
MT17		2.79	5.58	0.06	0.34	0.69	0.41
MT18		0.22	0.44	0.80	0.10	0.20	0.65
MT19		2.15	4.31	0.12	0.53	1.05	0.31
MT20	∗∗∗	5.53	11.05	0.0040	3.48	6.96	0.0083
MT21		2.20	4.41	0.111	1.39	2.78	0.10
MT22	∗∗	1.45	2.90	0.24	116.69	233.38	0.0000
MT24		1.63	3.25	0.20	0.00	0.00	1.00
MT25		1.39	2.78	0.25	0.17	0.34	0.56
MT26		0.81	1.62	0.44	1.39	2.78	0.10
MT27	∗∗	2.04	4.08	0.13	9.83	19.67	0.0000
MT28	∗∗	1.01	2.02	0.36	2.00	4.00	0.046
MT29	∗∗∗	3.52	7.03	0.030	12.12	24.25	0.0000
MT30	∗∗∗	3.20	6.40	0.041	4.62	9.24	0.0024

^∗MTs whose presence was affected by vitality, ^∗∗MTs whose presence was affected by tissue type, and ^∗∗∗MTs whose presence was affected by tissue type–vitality interaction.