Table 4.
Mean species richness in prevalence surveys by ‛Regionʼa specimen collection method (‛Methodʼ), and region by collection method (‛Region*Methodʼ)
| LSM | Lower | Upper | Group | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | ||||
| Oceania | 24 | 23 | 25 | A |
| Eastern Europe | 23 | 23 | 24 | A |
| North America | 22 | 22 | 23 | A |
| South America | 22 | – | – | – |
| Western Europe | 18 | 17 | 19 | B |
| Southern Africa | 15 | – | – | – |
| Northern Europe | 15 | – | – | – |
| Method | ||||
| Standard necropsy | 21 | 20 | 21 | A |
| Diagnostic deworming | 20 | 19 | 21 | A |
| Critical test | 19 | 18 | 20 | B |
| Region*Method interactions | ||||
| Eastern Europe*Standard necropsy | 24 | 24 | 25 | A |
| Eastern Europe*Diagnostic deworming | 24 | 23 | 24 | A |
| North America*Standard necropsy | 23 | 23 | 24 | A |
| North America*Critical test | 21 | 21 | 22 | B |
aPairwise comparisons between regions represented by more than one dataset; “–“ indicates no pairwise comparison
Notes: Pairwise comparisons are presented as Tukey-Kramer adjusted least squares means estimates (LSM), confidence interval limits (Lower and Upper), and conservative T-statistic groupings (Group). Groups with same letters are not statistically different