## 3 Results
### Influence of Physiographic and Edaphic Variables on the Understory Species Composition
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Environmental Variables** & **Code** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group I**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group II**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group III**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_p-Value**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SE** & **Mean \(\pm\) SE** & & \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SE** & **Mean \(\pm\) SE** & & \\ \hline Latitude (\({}^{\circ}\)) & Lat & 35.0 \(\pm\) 0.12 a  & 34.9694 \(\pm\) 0.19 b  & 34.58 \(\pm\) 0.050 b  & 5.57 & 0.009 \\ Longitude (\({}^{\circ}\)) & Long & 72.28 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 72.29 \(\pm\) 0.023 & 72.25 \(\pm\) 0.016 & 1.72 & 0.19 \\ Elevation (m) & Elev & 2017.75 \(\pm\) 205.23 a  & 2289.5 \(\pm\) 240.22 b  & 1699.4 \(\pm\) 64.48 a  & 4.87 & 0.015 \\ Slope (\({}^{\circ}\)) & Slope & 41.8 \(\pm\) 1.81 & 41.14 \(\pm\) 2.55 & 38.66 \(\pm\) 1.14 & 1.15 & 0.33 \\ Clay (\%) & CLY & 16.37 \(\pm\) 1.17 a  & 17.5 \(\pm\) 2.2 a  & 12.11 \(\pm\) 1.02 b  & 4.65 & 0.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Average values (Mean \(\pm\) stand error) of the environmental variables, i.e., topographic, edaphic and soil in the three community types (vegetation groups) separated by [PERSON]’s agglomerative cluster analysis. The three groups were Group I (Quercus baloot–Pinus roxburghii), Group II (Quercus semecarprifolia–Quercus robur), and Group III (Quercus lanata–Olea ferruginea). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**S. No**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Correlation**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Biplot Scores**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Axis 1** & **Axis 2** & **Axis 3** & **Axis 1** & **Axis 2** & **Axis 3** \\ \hline
1 & Lat & \(-\)0.06 & \(-\)0.49 **\({}^{\ast}\)** & \(-\)0.02 & \(-\)0.55 & \(-\)3.94 & \(-\)0.155 \\
2 & Long & \(-\)0.19 & 0.18 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)1.81 & 1.48 & \(-\)1.74 \\
3 & E & 0.23 & \(-\)0.39 * & 0.06 & 2.18 & \(-\)3.09 & 0.518 \\
4 & ASP & 0.08 & \(-\)0.09 & 0.16 & 0.74 & \(-\)0.74 & 1.25 \\
5 & CLY & 0.19 & \(-\)0.36 * & \(-\)0.19 & 1.77 & \(-\)2.92 & \(-\)1.48 \\
6 & SLT & \(-\)0.20 & 0.29 & 0.38 * & \(-\)1.83 & 2.28 & 2.95 \\
7 & SND & 0.09 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.26 & 0.85 & \(-\)0.72 & \(-\)2.03 \\
8 & pH & 0.22 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)0.21 & 1.97 & \(-\)1.72 & \(-\)1.63 \\
9 & OM & 0.09 & 0.16 & \(-\)0.003 & 0.88 & 1.26 & \(-\)0.02 \\
10 & L & 0.21 & 0.17 & \(-\)0.39 ** & 1.96 & 1.32 & \(-\)3.05 \\
11 & N & 0.22 & 0.09 & \(-\)0.02 & 1.82 & 0.75 & \(-\)0.18 \\
12 & P & 0.007 & \(-\)0.13 & 0.20 & 0.07 & \(-\)1.06 & 1.56 \\
13 & K & 0.36 & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)0.12 & 3.31 & \(-\)0.31 & \(-\)0.96 \\
14 & WP & 0.18 & \(-\)0.37 & \(-\)0.18 & 1.66 & \(-\)2.96 & \(-\)1.39 \\
15 & FC & 0.03 & \(-\)0.13 & 0.09 & 0.27 & \(-\)1.05 & 0.72 \\
16 & BD & \(-\)0.10 & 0.30 & 0.05 & \(-\)0.93 & 2.37 & 0.42 \\
17 & SP & 0.104 & \(-\)0.31 & \(-\)0.05 & 0.95 & \(-\)2.38 & \(-\)0.37 \\
18 & EC & \(-\)0.121 & 0.43 ** & 0.13 & \(-\)1.11 & 3.41 & 1.004 \\
19 & AW & \(-\)0.176 & 0.25 & 0.38 & \(-\)1.60 & 1.97 & 2.92 \\
20 & TIVI & \(-\)0.63 ** & \(-\)0.47 ** & 0.02 & \(-\)5.83 & \(-\)3.79 & 0.17 \\
21 & QIVI & 0.162 & \(-\)0.41 ** & 0.13 & 1.48 & \(-\)3.28 & 0.97 \\
22 & BA & \(-\)0.025 & \(-\)0.11 & 0.22 & \(-\)0.23 & \(-\)0.88 & 1.55 \\
23 & D/ha & 0.112 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)0.17 & 1.02 & \(-\)1.78 & \(-\)1.28 \\
24 & TpMi & \(-\)0.246 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)2.24 & \(-\)0.77 & \(-\)0.34 \\
25 & TpMa & \(-\)0.185 & 0.01 & 0.32 & \(-\)1.68 & 0.11 & 2.48 \\
26 & Preci & 0.259 & \(-\)0.09 & 0.03 & 2.36 & \(-\)0.71 & 0.24 \\
27 & RH & 0.102 & \(-\)0.05 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.935 & \(-\)0.37 & \(-\)0.35 \\
28 & WHC & \(-\)0.273 & 0.005 & 0.079 & \(-\)2.49 & 0.04 & 0.61 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: * (_p_ < 0.05); ** (_p_ < 0.01).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of the RDA showed correlation coefficients between the physiographic and edaphic variables and the RDA axes and biplot scores of each variable on all the three axes.