I am not sure the above is accurate because, in the Dependent Origination, ‘existence’ (‘bhava’) is born from ‘grasping’ (‘upadana’). It seems rocks, mineral, trees & vegetables don’t have ‘grasping’ (‘upadana’). I quoted AN 9.24 above, which as about the “abodes of beings (sattāvāsā)”. It seems to be a “being (satta/satto)” there must be “grasping”, as also described in SN 23.2, below:
“Sir, they speak of this thing called a ‘sentient being’.
“‘satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati.
How is a sentient being defined?”
Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sattoti vuccatī”ti?
“Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of.
“Rūpe kho, rādha, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.
When you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for feeling …
Vedanāya …
perception …
saññāya …
choices …
saṅkhāresu …
consciousness, then a being is spoken of.
viññāṇe yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.
The four jhanas are called ‘rupa-jhanas’. It seems it is a subject of debate why they are called ‘rupa-jhana’. I recall reading some monks, such as Ajahn Brahm & Sujato, say its called ‘rupa-jhana’ because there is a mental image (nimitta) in jhana and the word ‘rupa’ (‘form’) refers to this mental image. I am not sure the above is correct however its seems many diverse monks interpret ‘rupa-bhava’ as related to the four rupa jhanas, for example I saw in the Bhikkhu Buddhadasa book posted by Thito, below:
30 These three kinds of becoming (bhava) reflect the levels of: (i) attachment to the physical body and its sensations; (ii) attachment to the fine-material states of meditative absorption and; (iii) attachment to the immaterial states of meditative absorption. These last two are respectively called the rūpa-jhāna and arūpa-jhāna states; they are highly developed
states of mental concentrationPage 64 footnote: Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu - Suan Mokkh
The above sounds logical to me when based on your underlying assumptions derived from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation. However, this is probably why it is better to adhere to the translation of ‘kamabhava’ as ‘sensual existence’ rather than Bhikkhu Bodhi’s ‘sense-sphere existence’. It seems obvious the hell, ghosts, animal & demon existences are most often due to attachment to sensuality & worldliness. For example, many suttas say kamma such as of a warrior (SN 42.3) or comedian (SN 42.2) leads to animal & hell existences. For example:
The fire of lust burns mortals
Infatuated by sensual pleasures;
The fire of hate burns malevolent people
Who kill other living beings;The fire of delusion burns the bewildered,
Ignorant of the Noble One’s Dhamma.
Being unaware of these three fires,
Humankind delights in personal existence.Unfree from the bonds of Māra
They swell the ranks of hell,
Existence in the animal realm,
Asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts.
Some gods (deva) are also infatuated with sensual pleasures, as described in MN 37, MN 75, etc.
This again is probably why it is best to adhere to “sensual existence” as the translation of ‘kama-bhava’ rather than Bhikkhu Bodhi’s "sense-sphere existence/being’. The word ‘kama’ literally means ‘sensual’. Also, since the jhanas and immaterial meditations are also ‘sense spheres’ (‘ayatana’); and even according to Ud 8.1 Nibbana is a ‘sphere’; it is probably best to avoid Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation, which at least to me is confusing. 
Yes, I agree with the above.