Table 2 Evolution of presyngamic and postsyngamic reproductive compatibility in ascomycetes

From: The tempo and modes of evolution of reproductive isolation in fungi

Model fitted

Sum of squares

Kruskall–Wallis

Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney

e1, e2, or e3

a

   

(0,+)

(0,−)

(+,−)

  

Ascomycetes (allopatric), spores formation in crosses vs ITS divergence, N=20

 Snowball

26.4

0.9474

0.9474

—

—

−1842

 

 Linear

28.2

0.1482

—

—

0.1482

−92.5

 

 Slowdown

23.1

0.0056

—

—

0.0056

−200.1

40.5

Ascomycetes (sympatric), spores formation in crosses vs ITS divergence, N=69

 Snowball

208.4

4.10–5

0.2967

0.0125

1.10–6

−3080.7

 

 Linear

232.2

1.10–7

0.4134

0.0001

1.10–8

−115.2

 

 Slowdown

185.4

1.10–4

0.2195

0.0796

1.10–6

−196.0

34.1

  1. Spore formation was scored by a discrete variable and model predictions were produced for the same variable. Some differences between observed and predicted compatibility between allopatric species happened to be null, which lead us to test for the randomness of the distribution of 0 vs positive and 0 vs negative residuals, in addition to the usual test on positive vs negative residuals. For each data set, the retained model appears in bold (see main text for details on model selection, and Figure 4 for the fits of these models to the data sets).
Back to article page