TABLE 6.

Significant explanatory variables of enterococcal density as determined by the GLM for stream water samples collected in WS1 and WS2^a

Explanatory variable with log (enterococcal density) as the response variable	Coefficient	P
Constant	−2.424	0.122
pH	0.656	0.004
Temp	0.144	0.002
Turbidity	0.004	0.006
Three-day precipitation	1.401	<0.001
Watershed (WS1)b	1.184	<0.001
Seasonc
Spring	−0.389	0.117
Summer	−0.961	0.021
Fall	0.770	0.007
Site groupingd
WS1 site 1	−0.378	0.454
WS1 sites 2 and 3	2.164	<0.001
WS2 sites 1 to 4	0.830	0.002
WS2 sites 5, 6, 11, and 12	−2.069	<0.001

^aThe model fit adjusted R² was 0.497.

^bThe watershed factor can be interpreted as the difference between enterococcal densities in WS1 and WS2 (i.e., WS1 enterococcal density − WS2 enterococcal density).

^cThe season factor can be interpreted as the difference between the enterococcal densities in a season and winter; e.g., “Summer” being significant (P = 0.021) means enterococcal densities in the summer were found to be lower (negative coefficient) than enterococcal densities in the winter.

^dThe site grouping factor can be interpreted as the difference between enterococcal densities at a group of sites and WS1 site 4 (for WS1 samples) or WS2 sites 7 to 10 (for WS2 samples). For example, the positive and significant (P = 0.002) coefficient for “WS2 sites 1 to 4” means that the enterococcal densities at WS2 sites 1 to 4 were found to be greater than the enterococcal densities at WS2 sites 7 to 10.