## 3 Results
### Statistical Representation of the Categorical Data
Data also showed that the categorical classes of high (i.e., 1001-10,000 m\({}^{2}\)) and very high (i.e., \(>\)10,000 m\({}^{2}\)) cultivated areas were the only farms growing Khlas cultivar with \(\geq\)101 tree/farm (Table 1). On the other hand, the other two cultivars (i.e., Ruziz and Shishi) disclosed fewer variations in the categorical ranks of farm cultivated areas and classes of total number of trees per farm than the Khlas cultivar, as seen from the data presented in Table 1, which also point out that the most frequent category of farms with cultivated palms (i.e., number of tree/farm) was the \(<\)50 tree/farm, with 64.9%, 56.3%, and 61.1% for Khlas, Ruziz, and Shishi, respectively. Conversely, the least frequent category was the \(>\)200 tree/farm, particularly for the Ruziz and Shishi cultivars. These findings are consistent with the nature of the prevalent farms with small areas in the oasis, as already shown in Figure 4 (Table 1). In addition, Pearson's R (interval by interval) and Spearman correlation (ordinal by ordinal) tests were applied to evaluate both goodness-of-fit and/or the independence of the correlated variables. Their obtained results are outlined in Table 2, which shows that there are distinct significant relationships among the distribution of cultivated area and the distribution of other categorical parameters (i.e., total palm trees and trees of cultivars), with a Pearson's R of 0.88, 0.75, 0.43, and 0.41 for the number of trees of the total palm, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Categories of Palm Tree Numbers**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Categories of Farm Cultivated Area (m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} \\ \cline{3-4} \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**<500**} & **501–1000** & **1001–10,000** & \(>\)**10,000** & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{**No trees**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No trees**} & Count & 59 & 18 & 15 & 0 & 92 \\ \cline{3-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 41.5\% & 28.1\% & 19.2\% & 0.0\% & 31.9\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**<50 trees**} & Count & 83 & 41 & 38 & 0 & 162 \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 58.5\% & 64.1\% & 48.7\% & 0.0\% & 56.3\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**51–100 trees**} & Count & 0 & 5 & 17 & 3 & 25 \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 7.8\% & 21.8\% & 75.0\% & 8.7\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**101–200 trees**} & Count & 0 & 0 & 6 & 0 & 6 \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 7.7\% & 0.0\% & 2.1\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**>200 trees**} & Count & 0 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 3 \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 2.6\% & 25.0\% & 1.0\% \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{**No trees**} & Count & 78 & 20 & 11 & 0 & 109 \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**<50 trees**} & Count & 54.9\% & 31.3\% & 14.1\% & 0.0\% & 37.8\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 64 & 44 & 66 & 2 & 176 \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**51–100 trees**} & Count & 45.1\% & 68.8\% & 84.6\% & 50.0\% & 61.1\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 1.3\% & 25.0\% & 0.7\% \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**101–200 trees**} & Count & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 25.0\% & 0.3\% \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{**>200 trees**} & Count & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**>200 trees**} & Count & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._Khlas, Ruziz, and Shishi cultivar, respectively. On the other hand, Spearman correlation produced values of 0.91, 0.76, 0.37, and 0.39, respectively. In addition, all relationships showed approximate significances (i.e., \(p\)-values of 0.000).