Table 1.
Rankings of models used to explain the variation in the mammal community, host use, and Everglades virus (EVEV) infection rate in the vector.
| Models | Residual DF | -2LL | AICc | ∆AIC | AICc wt | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative cotton rat host use | ||||||
| Cotton rat activity + Non-rodent diversity | 6 | −25.09 | 66.19 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.34 |
| Non-rodent activity | 7 | −30.34 | 68.40 | 2.21 | 0.20 | 0.39 |
| Cotton rat activity | 7 | −29.58 | 69.16 | 2.98 | 0.13 | 0.39 |
| Non-rodent activity + Non-rodent diversity | 6 | −27.33 | 70.66 | 4.47 | 0.06 | 0.35 |
| Cotton rat activity + Non-rodent activity | 6 | −28.77 | 73.54 | 7.36 | 0.01 | 0.39 |
| Non-rodent diversity | 7 | −34.55 | 79.09 | 12.91 | 0.00 | 0.35 |
| EVEV Infection rate | ||||||
| Cotton rat activity + Relative Cotton rat host use | 6 | −24.41 | 58.53 | 0.00 | 0.28 | 0.17 |
| Relative Cotton rat host use | 7 | −25.81 | 59.33 | 0.80 | 0.19 | 0.23 |
| Cotton rat activity + Relative cotton rat host use + Non-rodent diversity | 5 | −24.40 | 60.52 | 1.99 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
| Non-rodent activity | 7 | −26.50 | 60.74 | 2.21 | 0.09 | 0.27 |
| Non-rodent diversity | 7 | −26.51 | 60.74 | 2.21 | 0.09 | 0.22 |
| Non-rodent activity + Relative Cotton rat host use | 6 | −25.71 | 61.14 | 2.61 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
| Non-rodent activity + Non-rodent diversity | 6 | −26.20 | 62.12 | 3.60 | 0.05 | 0.25 |
| Cotton rat activity + Non-rodent activity | 6 | −26.34 | 62.40 | 3.87 | 0.04 | 0.28 |
| Cotton rat activity + Non-rodent diversity | 6 | −26.35 | 62.41 | 3.88 | 0.04 | 0.22 |
| Cotton rat activity | 7 | −27.50 | 62.72 | 4.19 | 0.03 | 0.23 |
GLMM models were evaluated based on their residual degrees of freedom (DF), −2 log-likelihood (−2LL), AICc, Change (∆) in AICc, AICc weight (AICcwt), and pseudo R2.