Table 2.
Effects of rootstock varieties and spatial positions on the proportion of each prokaryote genus in the community data.
| Genus | Variety | Location | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | F | P | df | F | P | |
| Curtobacterium | 8 | 0.3 | 0.9710 | 14 | 1.1 | 0.3260 |
| Deinococcus | 8 | 1.8 | 0.0944 | 14 | 1.3 | 0.2386 |
| Hymenobacter | 8 | 0.5 | 0.8730 | 14 | 1.1 | 0.3900 |
| Kineococcus | 8 | 0.7 | 0.6710 | 14 | 0.6 | 0.8970 |
| Methylobacterium | 8 | 1.7 | 0.0986 | 14 | 2.0 | 0.0229 |
| Pseudomonas | 8 | 1.7 | 0.1060 | 14 | 0.6 | 0.8490 |
| Sphingomonas | 8 | 2.0 | 0.0538 | 14 | 3.2 | 0.0004 |
| Spirosoma | 8 | 1.0 | 0.4230 | 14 | 1.0 | 0.4310 |
For each prokaryote genus, an ANOVA model of the mean proportion of sequencing reads was constructed by including the rootstock varieties of host tomato and spatial positions in the field (location; Fig. 1A) as explanatory variables. Genera that occurred in 30 or more tomato individuals were subjected to the analysis.