Measures of geographic and genetic distance exhibited a highly significant positive correlation in the RMA analysis indicating that geographic distance explains a large proportion of the variance in genetic distance between populations (r2 = 0.73, P = < 0.01, y = 1.11 × 10-3 + 5.25 × 10-6 x).
Geographic factor explained 60.4% of the total variance for AEV, ALA and ALO, but AEV had the negative relationship with geographic factor.
Biogeographic variables (range in elevation and geographic location) explained up to 14% of the variance in species richness.
United States (2003) Wrobel et al. [12] A Medicare study examined the predictability of drug expenditure and found demographic variables (age, sex, disability & geographic location), explained only 5%% of the variation in drug expenditure.
Geographic position explained roughly 11% in species variation.
Therefore we found no geographic pattern explaining the phylogenetic relationships of the fungal species.
For example, Rosenberg et al. (2005) showed that geographic distance explained 69% of genetic differentiation among human populations and that barriers between continents explained only an additional 5%.
Additional research is warranted to understand the role of physician versus patient preferences as well as geographic differences explaining why patients advance through lines of chemotherapy.
Geographic distance explained more variation in male tail length than in the morphometric traits, but this effect was not as strong as in the models of plumage hue.
However, for some of the models, geographic distance explained a considerable proportion of the total intraspecific variation, which suggests that this part of the observed variation is potentially attributable to isolation-by-distance.
