In the mixed landscape types the behaviour was determined by the aggregation level of the underlying landscapes rather than the aggregation levels of the farms. So in this case the higher quantity of wild habitats won out over the higher quality of the farm habitats.

In the high aggregation landscape types the migration of infected vectors remain the dominant form of of disease spread, at least as far as volume of infected farms are concerned. 

In the low aggregation landscape types there is more parity between the different modes of disease spread.

In most of the different landscape types the best case has lower mean of infected farms than the median case which in turn has a lower mean than the worst case. So it would seem that there is at least some relative predictability in the severity rating that was used. However the variability was still rather high.