Table 3.
Model evaluation of the 5 single-trait animal models (as described in the text) considering –2LOGL, AIC, and LRT (as described in the Materials and methods)
| Trait | Model1 | No. of parameters | –2log L | AIC | LRT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-LEN | Model 1 | 2 | 1,607.91 | 1,611.91 | 24,031.73* |
| Model 2 | 3 | ––22,422.30 | –22,416.30 | 1.5208ns | |
| Model 3 | 4 | –22,423.72 | –22,415.72 | 0.0978ns | |
| Model 4 | 4 | –22,423.92 | –22,415.92 | –0.1016ns | |
| Model 5 | 5 | –22,423.82 | –22,413.82 | ||
| BW | Model 1 | 2 | 1,060.90 | 1,064.90 | 24,054.55* |
| Model 2 | 3 | –22,993.71 | –22,987.71 | –0.0516ns | |
| Model 3 | 4 | –22,993.63 | –22,985.63 | 0.0253ns | |
| Model 4 | 4 | –22,993.50 | –22,985.50 | 0.155ns | |
| Model 5 | 5 | –22,993.66 | –22,983.66 | ||
| WW | Model 1 | 2 | 4,200.11 | 4,204.11 | 24,032.09* |
| Model 2 | 3 | –19,831.53 | –19,825.53 | 0.4459ns | |
| Model 3 | 4 | –19,831.85 | –19,823.85 | 0.1326ns | |
| Model 4 | 4 | –19,831.96 | –19,823.96 | 0.0228ns | |
| Model 5 | 5 | –19,831.98 | –19,821.98 | ||
| PWW | Model 1 | 2 | 589.73 | 593.73 | 24,031.13* |
| Model 2 | 3 | –23,441.56 | –23,435.56 | –0.1594ns | |
| Model 3 | 4 | –23,441.55 | –23,433.55 | –0.1498ns | |
| Model 4 | 4 | –23,441.49 | –23,433.49 | –0.0943ns | |
| Model 5 | 5 | –23,441.40 | –23,431.40 | ||
| ADG | Model 1 | 2 | –31,078.03 | –31,074.03 | 24,102.14* |
| Model 2 | 3 | –55,161.59 | –55,155.59 | 18.5799* | |
| Model 3 | 4 | –55,164.52 | –55,156.52 | 15.6477* | |
| Model 4 | 4 | –55,179.31 | –55,171.31 | 0.8562ns | |
| Model 5 | 5 | –55,180.17 | –55,170.17 |
1Values from the best model are highlighted in bold. * = P ≤ 0.05; ns, non significant, P > 0.05.