Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

184Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human HealthTable 5.9 (Continued)FIO Base flow High flowSubcatchment land use n GeometricmeanLower95% CIUpper95% CIGeometric Lowermean a 95% CIUpper95% CI≥ 75% Rough grazing 13 2.5 × 10 8 1.1 × 10 8 5.7 × 10 8 2.5 × 10 10 ** 1.1 × 10 10 5.5 × 10 10≥ 75% Woodland 6 2.0 × 10 7 4.7 × 10 6 8.2 × 10 7 3.3 × 10 9 ** 1.3 × 10 9 8.8 × 10 9ENTEROCOCCIAll subcatchments 205 8.3 × 10 7 6.6 × 10 7 1.1 × 10 8 7.1 × 10 9 ** 5.5 × 10 9 9.3 × 10 9Degree of urbanisation bUrban 20 4.0 × 10 8 2.1 × 10 8 7.6 × 10 8 2.7 × 10 10 ** 1.1 × 10 10 6.2 × 10 10Semi-urban 60 1.5 × 10 8 9.8 × 10 7 2.2 × 10 8 1.1 × 10 10 ** 6.1 × 10 9 1.9 × 10 10Rural 125 4.9 × 10 7 3.7 × 10 7 6.5 × 10 7 4.7 × 10 9 ** 3.5 × 10 9 6.3 × 10 9Rural subcatchments with different dominant land uses≥ 75% Improvedpasture15 9.6 × 10 7 5.2 × 10 7 1.8 × 10 8 2.2 × 10 10 ** 1.3 × 10 10 3.8 × 10 10≥ 75% Rough grazing 13 3.3 × 10 7 1.2 × 10 7 9.0 × 10 7 3.6 × 10 9 ** 1.3 × 10 9 9.7 × 10 9≥ 75% Woodland 6 8.5 × 10 6 3.8 × 10 6 1.9 × 10 7 3.8 × 10 8 ** 1.3 × 10 8 1.1 × 10 9a Significant elevations in export coefficients at high flow are indicated: ** p < 0.001b Degree of urbanisation, categorised according to percentage built-up land: “Urban” (≥ 10.0%), “Semi-urban” (2.5–9.9%) and“Rural” (