Table 4.
Results of probit regression models assessing the effect of agriculture on indoor biting behavior in the DR Congo
|
Anopheles gambiae sensu lato |
Anopheles paludis |
Anopheles funestus sensu lato |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | 2·5% UI | 97·5% UI | Posterior probability (estimate >0) | Estimate | 2·5% UI | 97·5% UI | Posterior probability (estimate >0) | Estimate | 2·5% UI | 97·5% UI | Posterior probability (estimate >0) | ||
| Intercept | −0·78 | −1·06 | −0·50 | 0·00 | −1·29 | −1·59 | −0·99 | 0·00 | −0·51 | −1·40 | 0·34 | 0·13 | |
| Agriculture | 0·50 | −0·55 | 1·52 | 0·84 | 0·15 | −0·93 | 1·17 | 0·62 | −0·72 | −2·33 | 0·82 | 0·18 | |
| Precipitation | −0·15 | −0·22 | −0·09 | 0·00 | 0·31 | 0·07 | 0·57 | 0·95 | 0·15 | −0·80 | 1·11 | 0·21 | |
| Temperature | −0·44 | −0·59 | −0·29 | 0·00 | 0·20 | −0·04 | 0·07 | 0·99 | −0·26 | −0·90 | 0·39 | 0·61 | |
| Month | |||||||||||||
| August, 2013 (ref) | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | ·· | |
| November, 2013 | 0·74 | 0·46 | 1·02 | 1·00 | −0·57 | −1·10 | −0·04 | 0·02 | −0·48 | −2·12 | 1·15 | 0·29 | |
| February, 2014 | 1·01 | 0·74 | 1·28 | 1·00 | 0·49 | 0·20 | 0·77 | 1·00 | 0·70 | −0·49 | 1·92 | 0·87 | |
| April, 2014 | 1·19 | 0·95 | 1·44 | 1·00 | 1·42 | 1·00 | 1·83 | 1·00 | −0·50 | −2·25 | 1·17 | 0·29 | |
| July, 2014 | 0·58 | 0·39 | 0·78 | 1·00 | 0·69 | 0·41 | 0·96 | 1·00 | 0·32 | −0·97 | 1·61 | 0·68 | |
Posterior probability (estimate >0) values near 1 indicate high probability of increased indoor biting. Values near 0 indicate high probability of decreased indoor biting, whereas values near 0·5 correspond to little or no effect. UI=uncertainty interval.