Table 1.
No. of rate classes | No. of parameters | AICc | ΔAICc | AICc weight, % |
1 | 2 | 3,231.25 | 770.0 | 0.0 |
2 | 8 | 2,597.78 | 136.5 | 0.0 |
3 | 14 | 2,461.25 | 0 | 74.8 |
4 | 20 | 2,463.44 | 2.2 | 25.1 |
5 | 26 | 2,473.79 | 12.5 | 0.1 |
Table of the five different HRMs explored to analyze our AM fungal association data (Methods). We used AICc weights to determine the model with the best fit (bold).