## 3 Results
### Statistical Representation of the Categorical Data  
Table 1 includes the summary of the resultant applied categorical-type correlations between the farms' cultivated area, total number of trees/farm, and palm tree cultivars (i.e., in numbers and cultivated areas). Noticeable patterns of relationships between these traits were perceived in these results. The low rank category (i.e., \(<\)50 tree/farm) of the total number of trees embeds most farms growing the three cultivars together (i.e., Khlas, Ruziz, and Shishi), with a total of 164 farms of the surveyed 280 farms (i.e., 56.9%) (Table 1). This low rank is exclusive to the farm cultivated area categories of low (i.e., \(<\)500 m\({}^{2}\)) and medium (i.e., 500-1000 m\({}^{2}\)) classes. The medium rank category (i.e., 51-100 tree/farm) of the total number of trees included 60 farms (i.e., 20.8%) that were distributed between the medium (i.e., 501-1000 m\({}^{2}\)) and high (i.e., 1001-10,000 m\({}^{2}\)) classes of farm cultivated area categories (i.e., 42 and 18 tree/farm, respectively) (Table 1). The categories of high (i.e., 100-200 tree/farm) and very high (i.e., \(>\)200 tree/farm) total number of trees included 28 (i.e., 9.7%) and 32 (i.e., 12.5%) farms, respectively. These farms are only found in the categories of high (i.e., 1001-10,000 m\({}^{2}\)) and very high (i.e., \(>\)10,000 m\({}^{2}\)) classes of farm cultivated areas (Table 1). It is also worth accentuating that the very high category of total trees number is the only rank including farms (i.e., four farms), located in the very high class of the farm cultivated area (Table 1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & & & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & **\textless{}500** & **501–1000** & **1001–10,000** & \textgreater{}10,000 & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**51–100 trees**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\textless{}50 trees**} & Count & 142 & 22 & 0 & 0 & 164 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 100.0\% & 34.4\% & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 56.9\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 0 & 42 & 18 & 0 & 60 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 65.6\% & 23.1\% & 0.0\% & 20.8\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 0 & 0 & 28 & 0 & 28 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 35.9\% & 0.0\% & 9.7\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 0 & 0 & 32 & 4 & 36 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 41.0\% & 100.0\% & 12.5\% \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**51–100 trees**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No trees**} & Count & 8 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 9 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 5.6\% & 0.0\% & 1.3\% & 0.0\% & 3.1\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 134 & 42 & 10 & 1 & 187 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 94.4\% & 65.6\% & 12.8\% & 25.0\% & 64.9\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 0 & 22 & 20 & 0 & 42 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 34.4\% & 25.6\% & 0.0\% & 14.6\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 0 & 0 & 24 & 0 & 24 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 30.8\% & 0.0\% & 8.3\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & & Count & 0 & 0 & 23 & 3 & 26 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & \% within Cult. Area Categ. & 0.0\% & 0.0\% & 29.5\% & 75.0\% & 9.0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Cross-TAB categorical correlation between cultivated area and palm tree numbers. From the perspective of the studied cultivars, the results of the cross-TAB correlation revealed that the Khlas cultivar was the most grown in the Al-Ahsa oasis (Table 1), as it was only absent in 3.1% farms (i.e., 9 of 288 surveyed farms), specifically from those of low (i.e., \(<\)500 m\({}^{2}\), with 8 farms, 5.6%) and high (i.e., 1001-10,000 m\({}^{2}\), with only 1 farm, 1.3%) classes of the farm cultivated area categories. This cultivar however was mostly found in the categorical low rank of total number of trees (i.e., \(<\)50 tree/farm) with 64.9% (Table 1), being distributed between the cultivated areas of low and medium (i.e., \(<\)500 and 501-1000 m\({}^{2}\)) classes with 94.4% and 65.6%, respectively.