Table 1.
Description of variables used in analysis of musculoskeletal and possible persistent foot score analysis of African and Asian elephants.
Table 2.
Frequency of MS scores among African and Asian elephants during 2012 Physical Exam.
Table 3.
Univariate assessment of musculoskeletal (MS) scores in African and Asian elephants using multinomial logistic regression.
OR: Odds Ratio; *: P value < 0.05; ^ P value < 0.15 significance threshold for model building. Hypothesis: + Increase odds of having increased MS score;—Decrease odds of having increased MS score; 0 Neutral relationship on MS score.
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics for variables retained in final multi-variable regression model for the population with MS scores.
Table 5.
Multivariable assessment of MS scores using multinomial logistic regression.
Table 6.
Frequency of elephants per foot score for the Foot Physical Exam and for Possible Persistent Foot (PPF) scores.
The Foot Physical Exam was conducted in 2012. Possible Persistent Foot (PPF) scores were defined by an elephant’s 2012 physical exam score only for elephants that had existing 2011 veterinary records showing foot abnormalities in 2011.
Fig 1.
Frequency of elephants with multiple foot abnormalities separated by location of abnormality.
Black indicates nail, grey indicates pad, and hashed pattern indicates interdigital space.
Fig 2.
Frequency of elephants with co-localization of foot abnormalities.
Fig 3.
Risk increase for possible persistent foot scores by percent time on hard surfaces for an elephant 25 years old, where Percent Time In/Out Choice during the day and Space Experience at night are kept to average (8.52% and 22097.91 ft2, respectively].
Table 7.
Univariate assessment of possible persistent foot scores for African and Asian elephants using Poisson regression.
RR: Risk Ratio; nd: no data, *: P value < 0.05; ^ P value <0.15 significance threshold for model building. Hypothesis: + Increase risk of having increased PPF score;—Decrease risk of having increased PPF score; 0 Neutral relationship on PPF score.
Table 8.
Descriptive statistics for variables which were retained in the multi-variable regression model for the possible persistent foot score subpopulation.
Table 9.
Multivariable assessment of possible persistent foot scores using Poisson regression.
Table 10.
Average percent coverage of hard surfaces (concrete and stone aggregate) and soft surfaces (grass, sand, and rubber padding) in Indoors, Mixed, and Outdoor Environments.
Range for all combinations was 0–100% coverage.
Table 11.
Environment type (indoor, mixed, outdoor) frequency by 100% substrate coverage of hard (concrete and stone aggregate) or soft (grass, sand, and rubber padding) surfaces.