Table 3.
List of variables used to fit the model for TB occurrence in Ciudad Real
| |
|
Polyserial correlation Rho |
|
Phi coefficient |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description of the variables | Quantitative standardized | Value | pvalue | Dichotomous | Value | pvalue4 | Source |
| 1. Area of the municipality (km2) |
Yes |
0.343 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.273 |
<0.01 |
A |
| 2. Human population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) |
Yes |
−0.430 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.129 |
0.153 |
B |
| 3. Male population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) |
Yes |
−0.427 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.129 |
0.153 |
B |
| 4. Female population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) |
Yes |
−0.432 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.129 |
0.153 |
B |
| 5. Area of water areas in the municipality (km2) |
Yes |
0.023 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.173 |
0.074 |
C |
| 6. Area of rivers in the municipality (km2) |
Yes |
0.456 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.429 |
<0.01 |
C |
| 7. Area of water areas and rivers in the municipality (km2) |
Yes |
0.263 |
<0.01 |
No2 |
0.429 |
<0.01 |
C |
| 8. Area of roads in the municipality (km2) |
Yes |
0.256 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.175 |
0.066 |
C |
| 9. Proportion of water areas in the municipality (%) |
Yes |
0.010 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.111 |
0.248 |
*(C) |
| 10. Proportion of rivers in the municipality (%) |
No1 |
0.398 |
0.283 |
Yes |
0.242 |
0.01 |
*(C) |
| 11. Proportion of water areas and rivers in the municipality (%) |
Yes |
0.208 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.058 |
0.543 |
*(C) |
| 12. Proportion of roads in the municipality (%) |
No1 |
−0.078 |
0.235 |
No1 |
0.097 |
0.301 |
*(C) |
| 13. Number of hunting estates in the municipality |
Yes |
0.615 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.443 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 14. Mean number of hunting seasons in which the hunting estates of the municipality have been inspected (max. 10 seasons) |
Yes |
0.593 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.416 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 15. Number of hunting events taking place in the municipality per hunting season 2006-07 |
Yes |
0.512 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.415 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 16. Number of sampled red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 – proxy of red deer relative abundance |
Yes |
0.408 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.333 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 17. Number of “TB-positive” red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006-07 |
Yes |
0.588 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.435 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 18. Number of sampled wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 – proxy of wild boar relative abundance |
Yes |
0.344 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.374 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 19. Number of “TB-positive” wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006-07 |
Yes |
0.554 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.406 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 20. Apparent TB prevalence in red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) |
Yes |
0.559 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.404 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 21. Apparent TB prevalence in wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) |
Yes |
0.568 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.406 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 22. Number of bovine farms in the municipality in 2006 |
Yes |
0.667 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.433 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 23. Mean of the years in which the bovine farms of the municipality have been submitted to the sanitary plan (max. 6 years) |
Yes |
0.663 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.441 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 24. Number of sampled cattle in the cattle farms included in the sanitary plan in 2006 |
Yes |
0.666 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.569 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 25. Number of bTB-positive cattle in the cattle farms included in the sanitary plan in 2006 |
Yes |
0.501 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.583 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 26. Number of cattle farms with at least one bTB-positive animal in 2006 |
Yes |
0.678 |
<0.01 |
No2 |
0.583 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 27. Number of cattle farms with at least one bTB-positive animal relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
0.521 |
<0.01 |
No2 |
0.583 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 28. Apparent TB prevalence in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) |
Yes |
0.237 |
<0.01 |
No2 |
0.583 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 29. Number of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 |
Yes |
0.597 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.504 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 30. Proportion of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in both years (%) |
Yes |
0.523 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.391 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 31. Number of cattle farms becoming negative from 2005 to 2006 |
Yes |
0.414 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.504 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 32. Proportion of cattle farms becoming negative from 2005 to 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in both years (%) |
Yes |
0.244 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.391 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 33. Increment in the number of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 (number of farms becoming positive – number of farms becoming negative) |
Yes |
−0.081 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.434 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 34. Number of farms devoted to bullfighting cattle in 2006 |
Yes |
0.158 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.019 |
0.842 |
D |
| 35. Proportion of farms devoted to bullfighting cattle in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
−0.027 |
<0.01 |
No1 |
0.019 |
0.842 |
*(D) |
| 36. Number of cattle farms classified as extensive beef breeding farms in 2006 |
Yes |
0.656 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.562 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 37. Proportion of cattle farms classified as extensive beef breeding farms in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
0.605 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.466 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 38. Sum of animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 |
Yes |
0.459 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.425 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 39. Number of animals moved in the animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 |
Yes |
0.503 |
<0.01 |
No2 |
0.425 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 40. Mean of animals moved in the animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 |
Yes |
0.255 |
<0.01 |
No2 |
0.425 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 41. Number of cattle farms that also host goats in 2006 |
Yes |
0.446 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.344 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 42. Number of cattle farms that also host sheep in 2006 |
Yes |
0.620 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.412 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 43. Number of cattle farms that also host pigs in 2006 |
No3 |
0.508 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.319 |
<0.01 |
D |
| 44. Number of cattle farms that also host goats and pigs in 2006 |
No3 |
0.363 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.234 |
0.017 |
D |
| 45. Number of cattle farms that also host sheep and pigs in 2006 |
No3 |
0.454 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.243 |
0.016 |
D |
| 46. Proportion of cattle farms that also host goats in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
0.265 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.344 |
0.001 |
*(D) |
| 47. Proportion of cattle farms that also host sheep in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
0.236 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.412 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 48. Proportion of cattle farms that also host pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
0.127 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.319 |
<0.01 |
*(D) |
| 49. Proportion of cattle farms that also host goats and pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) |
Yes |
0.371 |
<0.01 |
Yes |
0.234 |
0.017 |
*(D) |
| 50. Proportion of cattle farms that also host sheep and pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.052 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.243 | 0.016 | *(D) |
The variables were grouped into three categories: (1) variables for factors related to human demographics and environmental features (variables 1 to 12); (2). variables for factors related to wild animals (variables 13 to 21); and (3) variables for factors related to bovine herds (variables 22 to 50). Polyserial correlation’s Rho values, phi coefficients and p-values were estimated to each candidate variables.
1: excluded variables because of a p-value > 0.10.
2: excluded dichotomous variables because they have the same values as other related variables, due to the variable transformation process.
3: excluded variables because they have few observations different from 0.
4: p-value obtained from the chi-square test.
A: ArcGIS estimation.
B: National Institute of Statistics (January 1st 2007).
C: Research Institute in Hunting Resources (IREC).
D: Castile-La Mancha region agriculture authorities.
*: Transformed from raw data.