Factors associated with select IOM-defined care indicators, DC Cohort, 2011–2016^a^,^b^,^c.

<p>Factors associated with select IOM-defined care indicators, DC Cohort, 2011–2016<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186036#t004fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>^,<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186036#t004fn002" target="_blank">^b</a>^,<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186036#t004fn003" target="_blank">^c</a>.</p

HHS and IOM quality of care indicators assessed using DC Cohort study data^a.

<p>HHS and IOM quality of care indicators assessed using DC Cohort study data<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0186036#t001fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

Proportion of DC cohort participants meeting criteria for selected HHS and IOM indicators for quality of care, DC cohort, 2011–2016.

<p>This figure represents individuals who were enrolled in the DC Cohort as of September 30, 2016 and met the criteria for selected Department of Health and Human Services and Institute of Medicine HIV quality of care indicators. While high proportions of participants met the HIV-related indicators (69%-95%), screening for sexually transmitted infections was relatively low (26%-51%).</p

Example relationship between the abundance of all status classified species (sum of increasing, decreasing, and vulnerable) and the abundance of vulnerable species.

<p>There was a strong overall positive relationship. However, plotting and fitting linear regression lines to sites of differing distance to field showed a distinct difference in the abundance of vulnerable species. At sites >2 km away from fields (sites in towns and cities) there was a lower proportion of vulnerable species than at sites adjacent to fields (rural sites).</p

Relationship between garden area and the total number of microhabitats and percentage occurrence of three key microhabitat features: lawn, tree and hedge.

<p>Error bars +/−95% confidence intervals.</p

Model averaged GAMMs of explanatory variable effects for fourteen species of moth.

<p>Parameters in bold are those that were significant at <i>P</i><0.05 for at least one model in the model sets. Values for the latitude longitude smoothing spline are the <i>P</i> values of the spline, together with a description of the effect. Abbreviations are: C = Crambidae, G = Geometridae, N = Noctuidae, Adj. R² = adjusted R², Lat. Long. = latitude longitude, Micro. = garden microhabitats, Alt. = altitude, Urban. = urbanization, D. field = distance to field, D.wood = distance to wood, D.wat = distance to water, Coast = distance to coast, D.s.light = distance to street light, G.size = garden size, N E S W = north east south west, and NS = not significant.</p

RDA ordination plot of species abundances in relation to explanatory variables describing urbanization level.

<p>Species associated with higher levels of urbanization are situated towards the top right of the two panels. Panel A shows increasing species, panel B shows vulnerable species (abbreviated species names and full species name underlined) and declining species associated with higher levels of urbanization (full species names, not underlined).</p

Example partial plot visualisation of the Latitude Longitude smoother used in the GAMM with total moth abundance as the response variable.

<p>Total abundance was highest in the SE of Britain (compare against map of Britain in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0086925#pone-0086925-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1</a>).</p