Skip to main content
. 2011 Jul 28;7(7):e1002104. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002104

Table 3. Heterogeneity of WNV-prevalence across different land-cover types in NYC.

Land-cover type Area (%) WNV prevalence Expected WNV prevalence κ2 p
Developed, open space 6.15 34 18.24 14.03 <0.001
Developed, low intensity 11.9 107 80.94 9.65 0.002
Developed, medium intensity 28.14 262 246.52 1.62 0.2
Developed, high intensity 40.07 187 263.79 38.96 <0.001
Barren land 0.63 1 0.21 2.87 0.09
Deciduous forest 3.72 2 2.81 0.23 0.628
Evergreen forest 0.54 7 0.43 100.56 <0.001
Mixed forest 0.11 2 0.61 3.18 0.074
Crops 0.84 1 0.48 0.55 0.457
Woody wetland 1.99 10 3.06 15.81 <0.001
Herbaceous wetland 2.68 6 1.9 8.9 0.003

Degrees of freedom was 1, and a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of α = 0.005 was used. Table only lists land-cover types in which WNV-positive dead birds were found. Land-cover types significantly different from the average are bold.