Table 2 Results of likelihood analyses of correlated evolution between acoustic communication and diel activity.

From: The origins of acoustic communication in vertebrates

Coding and tree

Dependent variable

Independent model (AIC)

Dependent model (AIC)

Likelihood ratio

P

Maximum diurnal

 Ericson

Acoustic

1667.669

1656.630

15.0393

0.0005

Diel

1667.669

1671.599

0.0706

0.9653

Acoustic and diel

1667.669

1660.581

15.0887

0.0045

 Hackett

Acoustic

1679.120

1668.694

14.4259

0.0007

Diel

1679.120

1682.932

0.1880

0.9103

Acoustic and diel

1679.120

1672.662

14.4581

0.0060

Maximum nocturnal

 Ericson

Acoustic

1396.779

1384.295

16.4837

0.0003

Diel

1396.779

1400.731

0.0481

0.9762

Acoustic and diel

1396.779

1388.039

16.7399

0.0022

 Hackett

Acoustic

1410.804

1395.390

19.4144

0.0001

Diel

1410.804

1414.757

0.0474

0.9766

Acoustic and diel

1410.804

1399.124

19.6802

0.0006

  1. Analyses were conducted using two methods for coding day–night activity patterns in arrhythmic and crepuscular species (maximum diurnal and maximum nocturnal) and two different trees (Ericson29 vs. Hackett30 backbone trees for birds). Three dependent models were tested: (i) acoustic communication depends on diel activity, (ii) diel activity depends on acoustic communication, and (iii) both traits depend on each other. For each comparison, the AIC of the best-fitting model is boldfaced. The likelihood-ratio test compares the fit of the model of dependent evolution to the null model of independent evolution in both traits. Results shown here assumed different transition rates for gains and losses (ARD model) for both characters. Results based on the equal-rates model (ER) are similar and are shown in Supplementary Table 3
Back to article page