TABLE 1.
ES dispersal rates
|
c = 0.2
|
c = 0.7
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | DESS | Ds=0 | DESS | Ds=0 | ||
| 10 | 0.204 | 0.22 (0.08) | 0.064 | 0.074 (0.029) | ||
| 50 | 0.044 | 0.05 (0.02) | 0.013 | 0.017 (0.007) | ||
| 100 | 0.022 | 0.03 (0.01) | 0.006 | 0.009 (0.003) | ||
| c = 0.2: | c = 0.7: | |||||
|
N
|
s
|
h
|
Ds≠0
|
Ds≠0
|
||
| 10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | — | — | ||
| 0.3 | — | — | ||||
| 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.34 (0.11) | — | |||
| 0.3 | 0.28 (0.11) | — | ||||
| 50 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.09 (0.02) | 0.020 (0.005) | ||
| 0.3 | 0.07 (0.03) | 0.025 (0.006) | ||||
| 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.14 (0.03) | 0.025 (0.005) | |||
| 0.3 | 0.07 (0.03) | 0.016 (0.006) | ||||
| 100 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 (0.01) | 0.010 (0.002) | ||
| 0.3 | 0.04 (0.01) | 0.010 (0.004) | ||||
| 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.08 (0.01) | 0.010 (0.005) | |||
| 0.3 | 0.04 (0.01) | 0.010 (0.004) | ||||
| Lethals | ||||||
| c = 0.2: | c = 0.7: | |||||
|
N
|
s
|
U
|
Ds≠0
|
Ds≠0
|
||
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 0.51 (0.09) | 0.094 (0.037) | ||
| 0.03 | 0.22 (0.05) | 0.073 (0.028) | ||||
| 50 | 1 | 1 | 0.20 (0.04) | 0.021 (0.009) | ||
| 0.03 | 0.05 (0.02) | 0.016 (0.006) | ||||
| 100 | 1 | 1 | 0.11 (0.02) | 0.011 (0.004) | ||
| 0.03 | 0.03 (0.02) | 0.009 (0.004) | ||||
Results of simulations for the two costs of dispersal c = 0.2 and 0.7 in populations with nd = 10 demes are shown. In the top, ES rates without genetic load (Ds=0) are compared with the theoretical expectations (DESS). The middle and bottom show the ES dispersal rates with genetic load (Ds≠0) for the mild mutations (s = 0.01 and 0.05) as a function of deme size (N) and dominance coefficient (h) and for the lethal mutations (s = 1 and h = 0.02) as a function of the genomic mutation rate (U). Values in parentheses are standard deviations over 100 replicates. Dashes (—) represent populations that crashed before 2000 generations.