Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 2;21:755. doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-07131-7

Table 1.

Comparison of results using different iterations of Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM)

Weightc Number of Clusters Average % consensusa Average relative standard deviation (RST)b
Conidia number Conidia morphology Protoperithecia number Protoperithecia morphology Perithecia number Perithecia morphology Ascospore number Ascospore morphology Average % consensus overall Basal hyphae growth rate Aerial hyphae height Average RST overall
0 18 91.72 94.20 93.74 94.23 95.27 93.34 96.35 98.32 95.06 26.76 34.12 13.20
0 19 92.16 94.50 94.05 94.51 95.45 93.66 96.48 98.39 95.29 25.33 32.54 12.76
0 20 92.50 94.78 94.35 94.79 95.68 93.92 96.66 98.47 95.52 24.62 30.43 12.36
0 21 93.02 95.19 94.61 95.04 95.88 94.21 96.81 97.03 95.54 28.30 31.30 13.09
1 31 95.92 96.57 93.46 94.99 95.70 95.39 97.32 98.76 96.03 19.80 24.13 11.02
1 32 95.22 96.66 94.40 95.98 95.84 95.53 97.40 98.80 96.37 20.18 24.55 10.44
1 33 95.67 97.05 94.57 96.11 95.97 95.67 97.47 97.95 96.40 22.57 25.24 10.92
2 32 96.23 94.89 94.02 95.04 94.22 95.51 98.76 98.82 95.90 17.52 26.50 10.88
2 33 96.35 95.05 94.20 95.19 94.31 95.64 98.79 98.86 96.01 16.91 25.83 10.67
2 34 95.45 95.24 94.99 96.82 94.47 95.77 98.82 98.89 96.43 17.55 26.30 10.22
2 35 95.15 94.62 95.00 96.91 93.95 94.98 98.03 98.09 95.94 18.98 25.30 11.19
3 29 96.20 96.09 93.25 94.20 92.63 95.26 95.53 97.62 94.94 13.77 27.67 10.82
3 30 96.37 96.22 93.47 94.39 92.88 95.34 95.67 97.70 95.10 13.43 26.61 10.60
3 31 97.45 97.64 91.71 94.52 94.39 94.05 95.14 96.63 94.87 15.60 27.08 10.98
3 32 97.45 97.29 92.26 94.54 93.62 93.38 95.46 96.91 94.78 15.46 27.69 11.41
3 33 96.92 96.53 92.41 94.65 93.28 92.81 95.29 96.69 94.52 17.58 26.11 12.14
4 32 90.89 94.99 93.99 95.11 94.39 94.23 94.57 97.20 94.93 14.23 18.81 11.42
4 33 90.50 94.98 93.99 94.80 94.13 93.80 94.40 97.37 94.78 14.21 19.08 11.96
4 34 90.78 94.78 94.10 94.83 94.76 94.13 94.97 97.46 95.01 14.10 20.18 11.75
4 35 90.82 94.93 94.27 94.98 94.91 94.23 95.11 97.53 95.14 13.78 19.68 11.57
5 36 85.84 95.66 94.14 95.40 95.38 93.87 94.33 97.42 95.17 14.09 13.44 11.26
5 37 85.28 95.45 94.18 95.41 95.51 94.04 94.48 97.49 95.22 13.99 12.45 11.22
5 38 85.18 95.55 94.88 95.63 94.53 94.15 94.03 97.55 95.19 13.90 12.05 11.20
5 39 84.56 95.62 95.24 96.70 94.67 94.30 94.18 97.61 95.48 13.93 12.46 11.00
5 40 84.36 95.37 96.40 96.26 94.37 94.01 94.33 97.67 95.49 13.80 12.71 10.96
6 39 89.07 95.73 94.33 94.58 93.57 93.70 93.89 97.39 94.03 14.11 11.64 11.03
6 40 89.64 95.83 94.22 94.71 93.73 93.86 94.04 97.45 94.19 13.94 11.86 10.98

aAverage percent consensus - For each cluster the category that was most prevalent was determined and represented as a percent. Then each cluster’s most prevalent category was used to create a trait average

bAverage relative standard deviation - For continuous variables, the standard deviation for each cluster was calculated and then divided by the cluster mean to determine the relative standard deviation

cWeight - Each phenotype was assigned a specific weight relative to the other traits when creating the Gower’s distance matrix. The phenotypes are in the order as shown in Table 1

No weight = (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1); Weight 1 = (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2); Weight 2 = (1,0.5,1,0.5,1,0.5,1,0.5,2,2); Weight 3 = (2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,6,2); Weight 4 = (0.5,0.5,1,1,1,1,1,1,6,5); Weight 5 = (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,6,4); Weight 6 = (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,6,6)