Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 4;12:672333. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.672333

TABLE 2.

Network level information from the different lichen guilds, including the number of compartments (Com.) within the network not connected via mycobiont–photobiont interactions; connectance (Con.) indicating the proportion of realized interactions; NODF nestedness metric with Z score (Z > 1.64 indicates significance at p = 0.05), relative nestedness (RN) values, and whether the result differs significantly from a random matrix (Sig.), also separately to mycobionts (NODF my.) and cyanobionts (NODF cy.); specialization within the network (H2’), web asymmetry (Web asy.) indicating the difference between the numbers of mycobiont taxa and cyanobacterial variants; partner diversity (Partner div.) indicating the diversity and evenness of distribution among the interactions; and niche overlap indicating the similarity of interactions between taxa, i.e., the sharing of the mycobionts (My.) or cyanobionts (Cy.).

NODF
Partner div.
Niche overlap
Com. Con. Z RN Sig. H2 Web asy. My. Cy. My. Cy.
Nephroma guild 5 0.089 1.80 0.27 Yesa 0.65 0.00 0.94 0.82 0.13 0.10
NODF my. 2.50 0.45 Yesb
NODF cy. 0.51 0.10 No
Peltigera guild 36 0.023 1.84 0.21 Yesa 0.81 0.21 0.82 0.24 0.01 0.02
NODF my. −0.68 −0.11 No
NODF cy. 2.19 0.33 Yesa

ap < 0.05; bp < 0.01.