Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 17;15:255. doi: 10.1186/s12862-015-0535-6

Table 3.

Comparison of the six biogeographical reconstruction models for three different scenarios (“S0”, “S1”, “S2”; see text for definition)

Scenario S0 Scenario S1 Scenario S2
Model lnL AIC i lnL AIC i lnL AIC i
DEC −13.984414 31.97 0.042 −13.072694 30.15 0.018 −14.54651 33.09 0.55
DEC + J −9.861326 25.72 0.96 −8.059002 22.12 0.98 −13.75296 33.51 0.45
DIVALIKE −11.852773 27.71 0.11 −10.371666 24.74 0.11 −13.23454 30.47 0.66
DIVALIKE + J −8.73571 23.47 0.89 −7.315617 20.63 0.89 −12.90696 31.81 0.34
BAYAREALIKE −17.770147 39.54 0.0047 −18.357268 40.71 0.0002 −19.58099 43.16 0.025
BAYAREALIKE + J −11.405964 28.81 1 −8.920927 23.84 1 −14.90445 35.81 0.98

For each model of each scenario are indicated the log-likelihood (lnL), the Akaike information criterion (AIC) values, and the Akaike weight ῳi (indicating the relative likelihood of the model). The model with lowest AIC value is marked in bold font and the most likely scenario is underlined. DEC = Dispersal-Extinction Cladogenesis; DIVA = Dispersal-Vicariance Analysis; BAYAREALIKE = Bayesian inference of historical biogeography for discrete areas; j = founder-event speciation parameter