Table 5 |
||||||||
|
Demographic modeling. |
||||||||
|
Posterior density (NF) |
Assumptions |
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mean |
95% HPD |
NA |
NB |
TF |
Tbot |
Source |
Remark |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
1 |
3.8 |
2–10 |
2000 |
2000 |
60 |
1 |
Ca+Mid |
baseline |
|
2 |
3.0 |
2–6 |
10000 |
2000 |
60 |
1 |
Ca+Mid |
|
|
3 |
20.4 |
2–82 |
2000 |
2000 |
60 |
1 |
Ca |
|
|
4 |
3.6 |
2–10 |
2000 |
2000 |
50 |
1 |
Ca+Mid |
|
|
5 |
18.6 |
2–38 |
2000 |
2000 |
60 |
10 |
Ca+Mid |
|
|
6 |
10.4 |
2–26 |
2000 |
2000 |
60 |
--- |
Ca+Mid |
an exponential growth from NF to NB |
|
|
||||||||
|
Estimated size of the founding population (NF) to the Baltic Sea at the Early Middle Ages. The ABC method was applied to 1,000,000 simulated genetic data sets (mtDNA control region and 7 microsatellite loci). The following population history was assumed as a baseline 1: a small part of the source (Canadian, Ca, and Mid-Atlantic, Mid) populations colonized the Baltic Sea at 1200 years or 60 generations before present (TF), experienced single-generation bottleneck (Tbot), then the populations of both sides of the Atlantic (NA, NB) kept a constant size (effective population size = 2,000) until the Baltic population became extinct. Modified population assumptions were tested in the scenarios 2–6; 95% HPD (highest probability density) intervals are listed. |
||||||||
|
Ludwig et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008 8:221 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-221 |
||||||||
