Table 1.

Estimated linear trends over time for the NIP, DON and DIN for each location and for all locations combined

Sampling sites	NIPa		DONb		DINb
	Odds ratio	p value	Ratio	p value	Ratio	p value
Bilthoven	0.82	< 0.01	1.18	0.01	0.95	0.49
Dronten	0.93	0.32	0.83	0.02	0.80	0.01
Ede	0.84	< 0.01	1.02	0.76	0.80	< 0.001
Gieten	0.96	0.39	1.11	0.07	1.05	0.43
Hoog Baarlo	0.81	< 0.01	1.18	< 0.01	0.86	0.02
Kwade Hoek	1.03	0.13	0.99	0.94	1.13	0.56
Montferland	0.90	0.05	1.04	0.37	0.92	0.22
Schiermonnikoog	1.01	0.89	1.00	0.99	0.94	0.47
Twiske	0.83	< 0.001	1.10	0.04	0.91	0.21
Vaals	NAc	NAc	0.92	0.28	1.03	0.73
Veldhoven	0.99	0.93	1.27	< 0.001	1.11	0.23
Wassenaar	0.95	0.04	1.10	0.02	1.08	0.09
All locations	0.92	< 0.001	1.07	< 0.01	0.96	0.10

DIN, Density of infected nymphs; DON, density of questing nymphs; NIP, nymphal infection prevalence

^aExpressed as the odds ratio, that is, the ratio between the odds of ticks being infected in two consecutive years

^bExpressed as the ratios between the rates of (infected) ticks in consecutive years

^cNA indicates that the model-fitting algorithm did not converge