Explaining Panel Pooled Mean Group (PMG) Result

[Clara Joan Joachim]

Hello, I am starting a new thread because I have a confusion on reading the result of my PMG- Panel ARDL estimation. My result is as follows:

Pooled Mean Group Regression
(Estimate results saved as pmg)

Panel Variable (i): ID                          Number of obs      =       248
Time Variable (t): year                         Number of groups   =         8
                                                Obs per group: min =        31
                                                               avg =      31.0
                                                               max =        31

                                                Log Likelihood     =  906.0644
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       D.cdi | Coefficient  Std. err.      z    P>|z|     [95% conf. interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
LR          |
       lnfer |  -.0278005   .0090196    -3.08   0.002    -.0454786   -.0101223
       irrig |   .0008385   .0021304     0.39   0.694    -.0033371     .005014
         hum |   .0130606   .0028067     4.65   0.000     .0075594    .0185617
        temp |   .0493952   .0132396     3.73   0.000      .023446    .0753445
        rain |  -.0000333   .0000176    -1.89   0.058    -.0000677    1.17e-06
         fcy |   .0000603   .0007949     0.08   0.940    -.0014976    .0016182
        nfcy |  -.0003694   .0003755    -0.98   0.325    -.0011053    .0003665
       lnexp |   .0355748   .0131102     2.71   0.007     .0098792    .0612703
          al |  -1.281879   .2662581    -4.81   0.000    -1.803735   -.7600228
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
SR           |
         ECT |  -.1051966   .1137458    -0.92   0.355    -.3281343    .1177412
             |
         cdi |
         LD. |  -.1074424   .1933066    -0.56   0.578    -.4863164    .2714315
             |
       lnfer |
         D1. |  -.0026205   .0064352    -0.41   0.684    -.0152333    .0099923
             |
       irrig |
         D1. |   .0196937   .0195853     1.01   0.315    -.0186928    .0580803
             |
         hum |
         D1. |  -.0018298   .0008909    -2.05   0.040     -.003576   -.0000836
             |
        temp |
         D1. |  -.0058602   .0029705    -1.97   0.049    -.0116823   -.0000381
             |
        rain |
         D1. |  -2.78e-06   3.48e-06    -0.80   0.425    -9.61e-06    4.04e-06
         LD. |  -5.95e-06   4.37e-06    -1.36   0.173    -.0000145    2.61e-06
             |
         fcy |
         D1. |  -.0000471   .0004399    -0.11   0.915    -.0009093    .0008152
             |
        nfcy |
         D1. |   .0003521   .0002295     1.53   0.125    -.0000978    .0008019
             |
       lnexp |
         D1. |   .0026243   .0115749     0.23   0.821     -.020062    .0253106
             |
          al |
         D1. |   .2869696   .1349101     2.13   0.033     .0225506    .5513886
             |
       _cons |  -.0792861   .0972293    -0.82   0.415    -.2698521    .1112799
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As shown, the ECT of my SR is not significant (p-value of 0.355). Hence, I am confuse on how to interpret my result. For the analysis of LR estimation, are they valid when showing significant? Or in general, anyone can help me to interprete the correlation of the LR and the ECT of SR?

I would really appreciate. Thank you.