Comparative tests of ectoparasite species richness in seabirds

Table 7 Multiple regression results controlling for phylogeny.

	Phylogenetic analyses
	log Like	AIC	Δ_i	w_i
Contrast of Residual Species Richness
PC3	-126.01	260.03	0.00	0.30
PC1*, PC3	-125.94	261.88	1.85	0.12
GlobPop*	-127.62	263.24	3.21	0.06
Contrast of Residual Genus Richness
Long	-106.85	221.71	0.00	0.21
Long, ClutchSize	-106.26	222.53	0.82	0.14
Long, PC1	-106.72	3.45	1.74	0.09
Contrast of Residual Ischnocera Richness
GlobPop, GeoRange	-111.33	232.67	0.00	0.13
GeoRange*	-112.38	232.77	0.10	0.12
GlobPop*	-112.72	233.44	0.77	0.09
Contrast of Residual Amblycera Richness
Long, ClutchSize, GlobPop, GeoRange, PC3, PC4	-72.03	162.06	0.00	0.28
Long, ClutchSize, GlobPop, GeoRange, PC1*, PC2, PC3, PC4	-70.41	162.82	0.76	0.19
Long, ClutchSize, GlobPop, GeoRange, PC1*, PC3, PC4	-71.55	163.11	1.05	0.16

Log Likelihood values (log Lik), Akaike's information criteria (AIC), change in AIC score (Δ_i), and AIC weight (w_i) for the top four of 25 candidate models relating host longevity (Long), estimates of global population size (GlobPop), geographic range (GeoRange), clutch size (ClutchSize) and the four principal component (PC1-4, Table 4) to the independent contrasts of parasite taxonomic richness (PTR). Sampling effort (Google Scholar citations) was included as an asymptotic variable in all the models shown in this table. * denote variables that were significant in the focused tests.

ISSN: 2730-7182