Table 2.

Summary of multiple logistic regression models used to evaluate the average abundance of Cx. quinquefasciatus (mosquitoes/trap-night) and WNV infection presence (presence/absence of WNV-positive pools in a trapping location), urban Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2001–2007.^a

					Residential use
Response variable, modelb	Distance to CSO (m)	Distance to catch basin (m)	Tree cover range (%)	Mean tree cover (%)	Low (%)	Medium (%)	High (%)	Wetland (%)	Forest (%)	Barren land (%)	Elevation (m)	Constant	AIC	ΔAIC	ωic
Cx. quinquefasciatus abundance
1	−1.2E–4*	—	0.08*	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.67	2999.3	0.0	0.658
2	−1.2E–4*	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	9.00*	3001.6	2.3	0.208
3	−1.4E–4*	5.0E–4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	8.99*	3002.7	3.4	0.120
4	−1.3E–4*	04.3E–4	0.11*	0.02	4.10	−4.63	0.88	1.33	8.28	79.32	0.03	1.79	3007.5	8.2	0.01
5	—	—	—	—	6.35	2.00	5.97	0.17	0.22	90.82	−0.02	3.68	3012.2	12.9	0.01
6	—	—	0.12*	0.05*	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−1.23	3012.2	12.9	0.01
7	—	4.8E–4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	8.32*	3015.5	16.2	0.0
∑ωi	1.000	0.0	0.669	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
WNV infection in Cx. quinquefasciatus
1	6.9E–4*	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−1.26*	406.2	0.0	0.559
2	7.5E–4*	2.4E–4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−1.28*	407.83	1.63	0.247
3	—	—	0.04*	0.04	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−3.70	408.8	2.6	0.152
4	—	—	—	—	1.40	−4.44	0.04	−3.33	3.33	22.19	−0.03	−1.88	412.15	5.95	0.029
5	2.1E–5	1.3E–4	0.04	1.31	−1.23	1.55	6.51	6.95	−4.07	21.23	−0.01	−4.03	413.9	7.7	0.012
6	—	3.5E–4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−1.51*	419.67	13.47	0.001
∑ωi	8.1E–1	0.0	0.152	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

^aResults show the parameter estimates and significance for each factor; different models are ordered from best to worst.

^bEach candidate model had 455 observations. Observations were based on estimates performed within 1 km of a mosquito trap location. Dashes within the cells indicate that the factor was not included in the model; numbers represent the parameter estimate for each factor.

^cAkaike weights, ω_i = exp(−1/2 ΔAIC) / ∑exp((−1/2 ΔAIC).

^*p < 0.05.