Kruskal-Wallis Test

PGPR vs Height
Ranks

Treatment N Mean Rank

Height WithoutPGPR 4 3.38

withPGPR 3 4.83

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

Height

Chi-Square .951
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .329

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable:
Treatment

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the height of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the same or
identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-square
value and is shown to be not significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.951, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that the
2

two treatments are equally effective with regard to the height of the plant host obtained.
PGPR vs Number of Leaves
Ranks

Treatment N Mean Rank

NumberofLeaves WithoutPGPR 4 3.63

withPGPR 3 4.50

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

NumberofLeave
s

Chi-Square .342
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .558

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Treatment

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the number of leaves of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.342, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the number of leaves of the plant host obtained.

PGPR vs Average Leaf Area

Ranks

Treatment N Mean Rank

AvgLeafArea WithoutPGPR 4 3.13

withPGPR 3 5.17

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

AvgLeafArea

Chi-Square 1.864
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .172

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable:
Treatment
The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the average leaf area of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 1.864, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the average leaf area of the plant host obtained.

PGPR vs Number of Buds

Ranks

Treatment N Mean Rank

NumberofBuds WithoutPGPR 4 3.38

withPGPR 3 4.83

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

NumberofBuds

Chi-Square .951
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .329

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Treatment

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the number of buds of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.951, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the number of buds of the plant host obtained.

PGPR vs Number of Flowers

Ranks

Treatment N Mean Rank

NumberofFlowers WithoutPGPR 4 3.00

withPGPR 3 5.33

Total 7
 Test Statisticsa,b

NumberofFlowe
rs

Chi-Square 3.111
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .078

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Treatment

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the number of flowers of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 3.111, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the number of flowers of the plant host obtained.

Fertilizer vs Height

Ranks

Fertilizers N Mean Rank

Height Without Fertilizer 3 3.33

With Fertilizer 4 4.50

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

Height

Chi-Square .609
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .435

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable:
Fertilizers

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the heigh of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the same or
identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-square
value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.609, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that the two
2

treatments are equally effective with regard to the height of the plant host obtained.
Fertilizer vs Number of Leaves

Ranks

Fertilizers N Mean Rank

NumberofLeaves Without Fertilizer 3 3.33

With Fertilizer 4 4.50

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

NumberofLeave
s

Chi-Square .609
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .435

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Fertilizers

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the number of leaves of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.609, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the number of leaves of the plant host obtained.

Fertilizer vs Average Leaf Area

Ranks

Fertilizers N Mean Rank

AvgLeafArea Without Fertilizer 3 3.67

With Fertilizer 4 4.25

Total 7
 Test Statisticsa,b

AvgLeafArea

Chi-Square .152
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .696

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable:
Fertilizers

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the average leaf area of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.152, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the average leaf area of the plant host obtained.

Fertilizer vs Number of Buds

Ranks

Fertilizers N Mean Rank

NumberofBuds Without Fertilizer 3 3.33

With Fertilizer 4 4.50

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

NumberofBuds

Chi-Square .609
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .435

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Fertilizers

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the number of buds of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.609, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the number of buds of the plant host obtained.
Fertilizer vs Number of Flowers

Ranks

Fertilizers N Mean Rank

NumberofFlowers Without Fertilizer 3 4.00

With Fertilizer 4 4.00

Total 7

Test Statisticsa,b

NumberofFlowe
rs

Chi-Square .000
df 1
Asymp. Sig. 1.000

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Fertilizers

The null hypothesis tested by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis is that the two treatments have the same effect
on the number of flowers of the plant host obtained. Therefore, the samples are random samples from the
same or identical population distributions. The obtained Kruskal-Wallis statistic is interpreted as a chi-
square value and is shown to be significant, 𝜒 (𝑑𝑓 = 1) = 0.000, 𝑝 > 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that
2

the two treatments are equally effective with regard to the number of flowers of the plant host obtained.
Initial Grade vs Final Grade (Contaminated Soil)
Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 InitialGradeContaminated 75.0014 7 .33163 .12535

FinalGradeContaminated 75.7414 7 .20186 .07630

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence
Interval of the

Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-

Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)

Pair InitialGradeContaminated
-
1 - .39657 .14989 -1.10676 -.37324 -4.937 6 .003
.74000
FinalGradeContaminated

The result from the analysis indicates that there is a significant difference in the Grade Quality of initial
and final Grade of Soil Quality Contaminated Soil Samples, t(df = 6) = -4.937, p < .05 . The mean values
indicate that significantly less grade of soil quality in the initial grade (M = 75.0014) than the final grade
(M = 75.7414).

Initial Grade vs Final Grade (De Contaminated Soil)

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 InitialGradeDeContaminated 74.7400 7 .37776 .14278

FinalGradeDecontaminated 84.1086 7 1.35793 .51325

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence

Std. Interval of the

Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-

Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)

Pair InitialGradeDeContaminated
- - -
1 - 1.62052 .61250 -7.86984 6 .000
9.36857 10.86730 15.296
FinalGradeDecontaminated
The result from the analysis indicates that there is a significant difference in the Grade Quality of initial
and final Grade of Soil Quality Decontaminated Soil Samples, t(df = 6) = 15.296, p < .05 . The mean values
indicate that significantly less grade of soil quality in the initial grade (M = 74.7400) than the final grade
(M = 84.1086).

Initial vs Final
Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 InitialGrade 74.8707 14 .36745 .09821

FinalGrade 79.9250 14 4.44055 1.18679

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence
Interval of the

Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-

Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)

Pair InitialGrade - -
4.61838 1.23431 -7.72086 -2.38771 -4.095 13 .001
1 FinalGrade 5.05429

The result from the analysis indicates that there is a significant difference in the Grade Quality of initial
and final Grade of Soil, t(df = 13) = -4.095, p < .05 . The mean values indicate that significantly less grade of
soil quality in the initial grade (M = 74.8707) than the final grade (M = 79.9250).

Presence of PGPR vs. Grade of Quality

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Residual for FinalGrade .206 14 .112 .925 14 .256

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

For the Shapiro-Wilk tests, the computed significance level is 0.256 > 0.05. Therefore, normality
can be assumed.
 Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

FinalGrade Equal
-
variances .969 .344 .271 12 .791 .66714 2.46298 6.03350
4.69922
assumed

Equal
-
variances not .271 11.769 .791 .66714 2.46298 6.04522
4.71094
assumed

the Levene statistic is F = 0.969, and the corresponding level of significance is large (i.e., p > .05)
. Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of variance has not been violated, and the Equal variances
assumed t-test statistic can be used for evaluating the null hypothesis of equality of means.

The result from the analysis indicates that there is no significant difference between the with PGPR and
without PGPR in the soil grade quality, t(df = 12) = 0.271, p > .05.
Presence of Plant Host vs. Grade of Quality

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

FinalGrade Equal
- -
variances 4.563 .054 12 .705 -.96250 2.48058 4.44222
.388 6.36722
assumed

Equal
- -
variances not 11.815 .697 -.96250 2.41071 4.29912
.399 6.22412
assumed

the Levene statistic is F = 4.563, and the corresponding level of significance is greater than 0.05 (i.e., p > .05)
. Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of variance has not been violated, and the Equal variances
assumed t-test statistic can be used for evaluating the null hypothesis of equality of means.

The result from the analysis indicates that there is no significant difference between the with Host Plant
and without Host Plant in the soil grade quality, t(df = 12) = -0.388, p > .05.
Presence of Fertilizer vs. Grade of Quality

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

FinalGrade Equal
- -
variances .325 .579 12 .863 -.44042 2.49285 4.99105
.177 5.87188
assumed

Equal
- -
variances not 11.209 .862 -.44042 2.47434 4.99321
.178 5.87405
assumed

the Levene statistic is F = 0.325, and the corresponding level of significance is greater than 0.05 (i.e., p > .05)
. Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of variance has not been violated, and the Equal variances
assumed t-test statistic can be used for evaluating the null hypothesis of equality of means.

The result from the analysis indicates that there is no significant difference between the with Fertilizer and
without Fertilizer in the soil grade quality, t(df = 12) = -.177, p > .05.