Table 6.

Summary of best-fit models for Pseudogymnoascus destructans on hibernating bats.

Model term	Covariates		Estimate	SE	95% CI
Presence-absence
Intercept			−0.72	2.78	−6.18, 4.74
Location	WNSWinters		0.95	0.38	0.2, 1.7
	Region	Middle	−0.12	0.47	−1.03, 0.8
		Deep	−0.62	0.46	−1.52, 0.28
Host	Speciesa	MYSO	−2.5	0.91	−4.27, −0.71
		PESU	0.31	0.62	−0.9, 1.52
	BMI		0.33	0.25	−0.16, 0.82
	Sex (M)		0.52	0.39	−0.23, 1.28
Clinical Signs	Fungus		−0.06	0.41	−0.87, 0.75
	UV		0.97	0.23	0.52, 1.42
No. of observations: 567; random intercepts: year and site
Abundance
Intercept			0.51	0.33	−0.14, 1.16
Location	WNSWinters		0.10	0.06	−0.02, 0.23
	Region	Middle	0.19	0.09	0.02, 0.37
		Deep	−0.07	0.08	−0.24, 0.09
Host	Species	MYSO	−0.81	0.19	−1.19, −0.43
		PESU	−0.25	0.14	−0.53, 0.02
	BMI		−0.09	0.04	−0.17, −0.02
	Sex (M)		−0.08	0.07	−0.22, 0.06
Clinical Signs	Fungus		0.2	0.05	0.11, 0.29
	UV		0.16	0.03	0.1, 0.22
No. of observations: 340; random intercept: site

^aMYSO (Myotis sodalis Indiana bat) and PESU (Perimyotis subflavus tri-colored bat).

Reference is a female Myotis lucifugus little brown bat without visible fungus roosting near the entrance of a hibernaculum.