Closed jessicaday closed 5 years ago
I think at some point some weird images got pushed, sorry for that. For Rahnella it is in the roots and bioballs but it is only significantly linked to the inoculum in the bioballs. You actually see more Rahnella in the roots of the commercial inoculum but none of the tests for the roots are significant because of the low number of genera there (study underpowered here). Rahnella is still one of the genera most associated with plant height in the roots but we do not have enough samples to get significant tests there.
For instance if i take the genera that are significantly associated with the inoculum and plot their abundances in the roots:
Or the same ones in the root vs. plant height:
You can still see some effect from Rahnella but it is not significant.
That's too bad it isn't significant. Is it still worth mentioning with the caveat that we have few samples so it could be significant but we weren't able to tell?
Also - could you check slide 14 and make sure I have the correct figures now? I'm not sure which ones are correct anymore. Thanks!
We can mention it but should not put too much confidence in it.
Sure, I'll check and also add the updated figure.
That makes sense. Thank you!
I thought you mentioned that Rahnella was found in the bioballs, and that if p=0.1, then it was also in the roots? In the new figure it looks like Rahnella is only in the roots. Is that correct?