Table 1.
Parameters, biological interpretations, and specific assumptions.
Table 2.
Distributions for simulation parameters and prior distributions.
Table 3.
Distributions for simulation parameters and refined prior distributions.
Fig 1.
The relationship between the coevolutionary sensitivities used to simulate data (X axis) and the values of these parameters estimated by our ABC method (Y axis) for scenarios where independent estimates of background parameters are unavailable, necessitating the use of relatively broad prior distributions.
The left-hand column shows results for cases where only 5 populations have been sampled, the center column cases where 10 populations have been sampled, and the right column cases where 20 populations have been sampled. Red points indicate parameter estimates for which the associated credible interval did not include zero. Black points indicate parameter estimates with credible intervals overlapping zero. The solid black line is the best linear fit and the dashed gray line is the perfect one to one relationship expected if all estimates were equal to their true values.
Fig 2.
The proportion of simulations where the true value of the parameter fell outside of the 95% credible interval of its posterior distribution (top panel) and the proportion of simulations where the true value of the parameter was equal to zero, but the credible interval did not include zero (bottom panel). Inference was performed using very broad priors restricted only by biological feasibility.
Fig 3.
The relationship between the coevolutionary sensitivities used to simulate data (X axis) and the values of these parameters estimated by our ABC method (Y axis) for scenarios where prior distributions for background parameters have been refined using independent estimates.
The left-hand column shows results for cases where only 5 populations have been sampled, the center column cases where 10 populations have been sampled, and the right column cases where 20 populations have been sampled. Red points indicate parameter estimates for which the associated credible interval did not include zero. Black points indicate parameter estimates with credible intervals overlapping zero. The solid black line is the best linear fit and the dashed gray line is the perfect one to one relationship expected if all estimates were equal to their true values.
Fig 4.
The proportion of simulations where the true value of the parameter fell outside of the 95% credible interval of its posterior distribution (top panel) and the proportion of simulations where the true value of the parameter was equal to zero, but the credible interval did not include zero (bottom panel). Inference was performed assuming independent estimates for background parameters were available, allowing narrower prior distributions to be used than in Fig 2.
Table 4.
Prior distributions for camellia and weevil parameters.
Fig 5.
Posterior probability densities for weevil coevolutionary sensitivity (top panel), camellia coevolutionary sensitivity (middle panel), and the composite index of reciprocal selection (bottom panel). Modal values were 2.37, 0.21, 0.81 respectively, and 95% credible intervals were {0.60, 2.94}, {0, 2.40}, {0.15, 2.20} respectively.
Fig 6.
Standardized biotic selection gradients acting on pericarp thickness predicted by our ABC method plotted against their independently measured values.
Predicted selection gradients were calculated for the five populations for which Toju and Sota [34] reported significant selection gradients and which belonged to a single clade. Predicted selection gradients were calculated by conducting a simulated phenotypic selection analysis in each population based on the modal parameter values of the posterior distributions.