Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of demographic analyses performed with various methods.

From: Did glacial advances during the Pleistocene influence differently the demographic histories of benthic and pelagic Antarctic shelf fishes? – Inferences from intraspecific mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence diversity

  MD W-H Taj. D Fu's F FLUCTUATE LAMARC SWEEP-BOTT
Cyt b        
T. bernacchi θi = 0 (0–0.7), θ f = 550 (0.97–3890) θ i = 0.21, θ f = 2.5 -1.8 * -7.7 ** 3969 (s.d. 199)‡ 1008 (36–1974) -11.9 vs.0 **
T. bernacchi (Ross Sea) θi = 0 (0–0.45), θf = 0.356 (0–2365) θi = 0.0001, θf = 19. -2.18 ** -8.11** 10000 (s.d. 1670) ‡ 4454 (3575–5625) -10.57 vs. 0 **
T. penelli θi = 0.1 (0–0.34), θf = 0.141 (0–776) θi = 0, θf = 3.8 -1.31 -2.29 ** 5717 (s.d. 745) ‡ 2246 (16–4064) -2.94 vs. 0.56 **
P. borchgrevinki θ i = 0 (0–1.5), θ f = 2110 (15.8–7666) θ i = 0, θ f = 15.1 -1.95 ** -19.04 ** 8350 (s.d. 135) ‡ 4407 (3158–4981) NA
T. newnesi θ i = 0.005 (0–2.1), θ f = 6.58 (3–1645) θ i = 0, θ f = 5.2 -0.83 -7.81 * 889 (s.d. 116) ‡ 482 (180–696) NA
S7        
T. bernacchi θi = 0 (0–0.5), θf = 552 (1.3–3678) ** θi = 0, θf = 2.6 -1.21 -3.95 1587 (s.d. 156)   -16.4 vs. 0 **
T. bernacchi (Ross Sea) θi = 0 (0–0.6), θf = 492 (1–3406)** θi = 0, θf = 2.3 -0.88 -2.16 1387 (s.d. 191) ‡   -10.4 vs. -7.3 *
T. penelli θ i = 0.004 (0–0.7), θ f = 1.354 (0.1–4081) θ i = 0, θ f = 1.0 -1.15 -2.88 1813 (s.d. 274) ‡   -22.02 vs. 0 **
P. borchgrevinki θi = 0 (0–0.8), θf = 33.1 (5.6–6823) θi = 0, θf = 2.38 -0.15 -2.77 1013 (s.d. 151) ‡   NA
T. newnesi θi = 0.006 (0–7.8), θf = 4.08 (1.3–29)* θi = 11.6, θf = 0 2.09* 3.97 33 (s.d. 86)   -26.1 vs. 24.2
  1. For the Mismatch distribution (MD) and Wakeley and Hey's (W-H) methods, we indicate the pre- (θi) and post- (θf) expansion population parameters. Significant departures from expectation under the sudden expansion model of MD are indicated with asterisks (* means P < 0.05, ** < 0.01). Tajima's D and Fu's Fs are indicated with their significance as above (in the latter case, * stands for P < 0.02 and ** for < 0.004). ML values of growth parameters estimated separately for each locus in FLUCTUATE are noted together with their standard deviation in parentheses. ‡ denotes cases where the zero growth value were excluded from the the 95% C.I. We further indicate the ML estimates of growth parameters for joined dataset as estimated by LAMARC together with 95% C.I. Finally, we also indicate the Log Likelihood values of no-founder and bottleneck models of Galtier et al. as estimated by SWEEP-BOTTLENECK software. Asterisks denote the significance of the LRT test as above. NA denotes cases, where this method was not applicable.