TABLE 5 |.

Associations between detection of each microbial or molecular target, and spatial factors according to generalized linear mixed models^a.

Outcome	Factor	Change in Odds	95% CIb	P-value
eaeA-stx Codetection
	Bottom Substrate, Cobble or Larger (Absent = Reference)	0.50	0.24, 1.05	0.068
	Developed Non-Open Space, IDW c % of Flood Plain	0.92	0.85, 0.99	0.012
	Developed Non-Open Space, IDW % of Stream Corridor	0.93	0.86, 1.00	0.036
	Developed Non-Open Space, IDW % of Total Watershed	0.95	0.90, 1.00	0.034
	Developed Open Space, IDW % of Flood Plain	0.95	0.91, 0.99	0.012
	Developed Open Space, IDW % of Stream Corridor	0.95	0.91, 0.99	0.010
	Developed Open Space, IDW % of Total Watershed	0.93	0.88, 0.99	0.018
	Ditch, Present Immediately Upstream of Site (Absent = Reference)	2.17	1.02, 4.62	0.044
	Forest Wetland, IDW % of Flood Plain	1.02	1.00, 1.04	0.022
	Forest Wetland, IDW % of Stream Corridor	1.02	1.00, 1.05	0.038
	Open Water, IDW % of Flood Plain	0.98	0.95, 1.00	0.043
	Open Water, IDW % of Stream Corridor	0.90	0.81, 0.99	0.033
	Open Water, IDW % of Total Watershed	0.83	0.69, 0.99	0.033
	Wastewater Discharge Sites, Upstream Density (per 10 km2)	0.23	0.04, 1.30	0.096
	In-stream Waterbodies, Flow Path Distance to Nearest (km)	1.10	1.01, 1.19	0.032
	In-stream Waterbodies, Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	2.04	0.96, 4.35	0.065
Listeria species excluding L. monocytogenes
	Bottom Substrate, Coarse Gravel (Absent = Reference)	2.29	0.97, 5.41	0.059
	Bottom Substrate, Fine Gravel (Absent = Reference)	2.12	0.87, 5.16	0.097
	Bottom Substrate, Organic Matter (Absent = Reference)	0.42	0.16, 1.10	0.077
	Bottom Substrate, Sand (Absent = Reference)	0.45	0.19, 1.04	0.062
	Campgrounds, Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	0.37	0.13, 1.11	0.076
	Dairy Operations, Flow Path Distance to Nearest (km)	0.84	0.03. 0.73	0.027
	Dairy Operations, Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	0.26	0.75, 0.98	0.028
	Ditch, Present Immediately Upstream of Site (Absent = Reference)	0.41	0.16, 1.05	0.064
	In-stream Waterbodies, Flow Path Distance to Nearest (km)	0.86	0.75, 0.98	0.028
	Livestock Operation, Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	0.27	0.08, 0.93	0.039
	Pasture, IDW % of Flood Plain	1.03	1.00, 1.07	0.070
	Pig Farms, Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	0.16	0.04, 0.69	0.014
	Pig Farms, Upstream Density (per 10 km2)	0.00d	0.00, 5.17	0.077
	Stables, Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	0.32	1.06, 1.67	0.018
L. monocytogenes Isolation
	Campgrounds, Upstream Density (per 10 km2)	565.4e	0.91, 3.50*105	0.053
	Developed Non-Open Space, 0–100m Upstream of Site (%)	0.96	0.91, 1.01	0.086
Salmonella Isolation
	Bottom Substrate, Cobble or Larger (Absent = Reference)	0.55	0.30, 1.01	0.054
	Campground, Flow Path Distance to Nearest (km)	0.94	0.88, 1.01	0.068
	Dairy Operations, Upstream Density (per 10 km2)	0.47	0.28, 0.81	0.007
	Pasture, 0–100m Upstream of Site (%)	0.99	0.97, 1.00	0.053
	Developed Open Space, IDW % of Stream Corridor	1.03	1.00, 1.06	0.096
	Ditch, Stormwater Outfalls Present Upstream (Absent = Reference)	2.04	1.03, 4.05	0.042
	Poultry Operations, Flow Path Distance to Nearest (km)	0.93	0.86, 1.00	0.060

^aSince this was a hypothesis-generating study, two thresholds were used for interpreting the results of the GLMMs. Specifically, P< 0.05 indicated that likelihood of microbial target detection and the factor were significantly associated, while a 0.05 ≤P<0.10 indicated the presence of a potential relationship that warrants investigation in future studies.

^bCI, Confidence interval.

^cIDW, Inverse distance weighted.

^dThe odds ratio was >0.000 but <0.001.

^eThis confidence interval is wide due to sparse data bias, which is a product of the low prevalence of L. monocytogenes (10%; 20/196) and of watersheds with campgrounds upstream of the sampling site (22%; 16/71); 54% of L. monocytogenes-positive samples were collected from watersheds with campgrounds upstream.