Table 2 Maximum likelihood estimates and model comparisons for each landscape evolution models (LEM) pair.

From: Riverscape dynamics and habitat utilization structure evolutionary diversification in a clade of Amazonian electric fishes

LEM

Groups

Model Type

Species

# Regions

GRE

ln L

K

δ

e

AIC

LEM1a

Apteronotidae

Bioregion SS

82

7

DEC

− 329

2

0.022

0.013

662

LEM1b

Apteronotidae

Bioregion 2TS

82

7

DEC

− 288

2

0.056

0.026

580

LEM2a

Navajini

Bioregion SS

26

6

DEC

− 111

2

0.049

0.039

226

LEM2b

Navajini

Bioregion 2TS

26

6

DEC

− 106

2

0.082

0.056

216

LEM3a

Apteronotini

Bioregion SS

25

7

DEC

− 71

2

0.009

0.005

146

LEM3b

Apteronotini

Bioregion 2TS

25

7

DEC

− 66

2

0.028

0.009

136

  1. Each biogeographical scenario represents a unique combination of three LEMs incorporating megariver captures in the Sub-Andean foreland and the dispersal-extinction-cladogenesis (DEC) model of geographic range evolution. Model fit as log-likelihood (lnL) values was assessed using the number of macroevolutionary parameters (K) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Bolded LEM favored by AIC. Abbreviations: GRE, general-rate-estimation; K, number of parameters; δ , macroevolutionary dispersal rate; e, extinction rate. Navajini (26 species) and Apteronotini (24 species) used to test alternative river capture models.
Back to article page