Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Comparison of path models.

From: Predator mediated selection and the impact of developmental stage on viability in wood frog tadpoles (Rana sylvatica)

   Maximum Likelihood Analyses
Model Path constrained to zero χ2 df P AIC Δ i w i Evidence Ratio
1 Head length → Fitness 5.38 7 0.61 61.38 0 0.28  
2 Max. swim speed → Fitness 1.98 5 0.85 61.98 0.60 0.21 1.35
3 Head ht. → Fitness 4.28 6 0.64 62.28 0.89 0.18 1.56
4 Tail muscle ht. → Max. swim speed 8.39 8 0.40 62.39 1.00 0.17 1.65
5 Tail fin ht. → Max. swim speed 1.58 4 0.81 63.58 2.19 0.09 3.00
6 Tail length → Max. swim speed 1.20 3 0.75 65.20 3.81 0.04 6.73
7 Tail muscle ht. → Fitness 0.89 2 0.64 66.89 5.51 0.02 15.70
8 Head ht. → Max. swim speed 0.36 1 0.55 68.36 6.98 0.01 32.77
9 Saturated model -- 0 -- 70.00 8.62 0.00 74.33
  1. Chi-square values (χ2), degrees of freedom (df), and the associated P value report the significance of the model. Note that model 9 is saturated, and thus the fit of the model to the data could not be tested using the chi-square statistic. In models that are not significant, the data are a good fit to the model. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; Δ I = difference in AIC scores between the best model and subsequent model; w i = normalized relative likelihood of the model given the data; Evidence Ratio = the relative odds that a model is the best given the data.