Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

182Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human HealthTable 5.8 (Continued)FIO Base flow High flowSub-catchment land use n GeometricmeanLower95% CIUpper95% CIGeometric Lowermean a 95% CIUpper95% CIENTEROCOCCIAll sub-catchments 205 2.7 × 10 2 2.2 × 10 2 3.3 × 10 2 5.5 × 10 3 ** 4.4 × 10 3 6.8 × 10 3Degree of urbanisation bUrban 20 1.4 × 10 3 9.1 × 10 2 2.1 × 10 3 2.1 × 10 4 ** 1.3 × 10 4 3.3 × 10 4Semi-urban 60 5.5 × 10 2 4.1 × 10 2 7.3 × 10 2 1.0 × 10 4 ** 7.6 × 10 3 1.4 × 10 4Rural 125 1.5 × 10 2 1.1 × 10 2 1.9 × 10 2 3.3 × 10 3 ** 2.4 × 10 3 4.3 × 10 3Rural sub-catchments with different dominant land uses≥ 75% Improved pasture 15 2.2 × 10 2 1.4 × 10 2 3.5 × 10 2 1.0 × 10 4 ** 7.9 × 10 3 1.4 × 10 4≥ 75% Rough grazing 13 4.7 × 10 1.7 × 10 1.3 × 10 2 1.2 × 10 3 ** 5.8 × 10 2 2.7 × 10 3≥ 75% Woodland 6 1.6 × 10 7.4 3.5 × 10 1.7 × 10 2 ** 5.5 × 10 5.2 × 10 2a Significant elevations in concentrations at high flow are indicated: ** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.b Degree of urbanisation, categorised according to percentage built-up land: “Urban” (≥10.0%), “Semi-urban” (2.5–9.9%) and “Rural”(