You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Relative importance (%) of micro-habitat variables in the four models (two per season) predicting overall bank vole presence and infected (Inf.) bank vole presence in 58 1-ha plots between fall 2003 and 2013

From: Spatial prediction and validation of zoonotic hazard through micro-habitat properties: where does Puumala hantavirus hole – up?

  Relative importance (%)
Spring Fall
Habitat variable Bank vole presence Inf. bank vole presence Bank vole presence Inf. bank vole presence
Bilberry 7.4 4.0 7.6 3.6
Shrubs 4.0 5.8 4.7 -
Cobbles - - - 3.0
CWD 6.8 4.3 - -
FWD 3.2 - - 5.1
Large holes 6.8 10.3 11.4 12.1
Lichens - - 2.6 -
Lingonberry 8.1 4.8 - -
Pine - - 4.2 -
Spruce 4.1 3.9 - 3.7
Stoneholes - - 4.9 -
Tree layer 1 - - 2.7 3.5
Tree layer 2 4.6 4.4 - -
Uveg - - 3.2 4.2
  1. The three variables with highest relative importance (%) in each model are given in bold