Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(3)
Exact(2)
The estimated mean node age in these cases was affected to a higher extent by outgroup inclusion/exclusion and by the clock model.
Third, the diversification rates were visualized by generating multiple lineage-through-time plots (MLTTP) for 50 randomly selected trees from the tree pool output from BEAST using the R packages APE and GEIGER, plus lineage-through-time plots (LTTP) for the consensus chronogram with a mean node age.
Similar(58)
Results from various analyses of Dataset2 (node numbers refer to Figure. 3): branch support, mean node ages, the 95% highest posterior density values (HPD; depicted as grey bars in Figure.
Again, posterior mean node ages were lower in MULTIDIVTIME than in MCMCTREE.
Mean node ages and 95% HPD ranges are provided for the major splits.
Trees then were compiled into a maximum clade credibility (MCC) tree using TreeAnnotator [ 28] to display mean node ages and highest posterior density (HPD) intervals (95%% upper and lower) for each node.
The posterior means showed generally the same patterns as those detected for Podarcis, i.e., relaxed and strict clock analyses gave quite similar mean node ages for both programs with slightly wider posterior intervals under the relaxed clock.
Divergence timing estimates of both pollinator and Ficus phylogenies show a high incidence of overlap among the 95% upper and lower posterior density intervals around the mean node ages.
Posterior values for these divergences were 0.36 and 0.34 respectively; therefore, the relative positioning of divergences cannot be stated with certainty, although, the mean node ages suggest divergence 0.47 and 0.45 MYA.
The resulting estimated mean node ages were 13.4 mya (23.5 to 4.7 mya, 95% HPD) for node I, 11.0 mya (19.4 to 3.9 mya, 95% HPD) for node II, and 9.4 mya (16.6 to 3.4 mya, 95% HPD) for node III, respectively.
One set was based on the best (i.e. mean) estimates of node age; the others were derived from the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals around these dates.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com