Sentence examples for forest did not differ from inspiring English sources

In BF, distances from damage locations and random points to the edge of continuous forest did not differ significantly but were significantly different when compared to distances to the nearest forest patch (Table  1).

The average abundance of Microtus voles, on the contrary, was at its lowest in the advanced forest, i.e. lower than in either the young forest or meadow; their abundance in the meadow and in the young forest did not differ.

The biomass of M. arvalis in the meadow and young forest did not differ significantly, but it was lower in the advanced forest (t = 2.61, P = 0.012 compared with the meadow, and t = 2.17, P < 0.05 compared with the young forest).

In the case of NS, small mammal diversity in the young forest was significantly higher than in the meadow, but small mammal diversity in the advanced forest did not differ from that in the meadow or in the young forest (Fig. 3b).

M forests did not differ from Nb forests in density and dominant height, but mean diameter M showed an intermediate situation between Np and Nb forests.

A similar pattern emerged at the level of individual counts, except that native forests did not differ from mid-aged pine plantations in the number of species detected per count (Figure S2, Table S2).

Studies have shown that the monodominant G. dewevrei forests and their adjacent mixed forests do not differ significantly in their above-ground biomass [3], wood production [4], number of stems [5] and species richness of tree ≥10 cm diameter at breast height [5].

Appreciation of the forest environment did not differ significantly depending on whether the forest was thinned or unthinned.

In contrast, logged forest communities did not differ significantly from those in primary forest with respect to species richness, diversity, evenness or abundance (all P ≥ 0.1) (Table  2).

The species assemblage of primary forest was significantly different from that of both once-logged (r = 0.20, d.f. = 1, P = 0.001) and twice-logged forest (r = 0.20, d.f. = 1, P = 0.02), but the assemblages in the two-logged forest treatments did not differ (r = 0.08, d.f. = 1, P = 0.29).

Differences in canopy cover only became apparent during the dry season, when it was more closed in non-degraded as in degraded habitat (MWU3,4 = 0.0, p = 0.034), whereas rainy season forest cover did not differ between non-degraded and degraded habitat (MWU4,2 = 0.0, p = 0.060).