Table 4.

Results of Poisson GLMs examining the effect of individuals’ degree centrality in their social grooming and huddling networks, and their interactions with sex and dominance rank, on the outcome of E. coli degree in their transmission networks (Aim 3)

Model	Outcome variable	Predictors	β	SE	P	AICc	df
Null	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.51	0.03	<0.01**	988.2	96
Al	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.61	0.06	<0.01**	987.05	95
		Groom degree	−0.27	0.15	0.07
A2	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.16	0.06	<0.01**	942.6	95
		Huddle degree	0.88	0.13	<0.01**
A3	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.61	0.08	<0.01	982.67	93
		Groom degree	−0.43	0.20	0.03*
		Sex	0.00	0.12	1.00
		Groom degree:Sex	0.44	0.30	0.14
A4	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	1.96	0.08	<0.01**	926.39	93
		Huddle degree	1.17	0.15	<0.01**
		Sex	0.56	0.13	<0.01**
		Huddle degree:Sex	−0.90	0.29	<0.01**
A5	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.93	0.11	<0.01**	974.13	93
		Groom degree	1.57	0.35	<0.01**
		Rank	−0.56	0.22	0.01**
		Groom degree:Rank	2.04	0.52	<0.01**
A6	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.20	0.11	<0.01**	942.28	93
		Huddle degree	1.05	0.25	<0.01**
		Rank	−0.17	0.22	0.43
		Huddle degree:Rank	−0.13	0.42	0.76
A7	E. coli degree	(Intercept)	2.85	0.12	<0.01**	898.28	93
		Groom degree	−0.26	0.29	0.36
		Huddle degree	2.25	033	<0.01**
		Groom degree:Huddle degree	3.55	0.65	<0.01**

Models in bold indicate those that were interpreted as being significantly better-fit models (dAICc < 8) than the null, and (in the case of models with interaction terms) a better fit than a simpler model with just main effect(s).

^*P < 0.05;

^**P < 0.01.