The genomic impact of historical hybridization with massive mitochondrial DNA introgression

Table 1 Mean population introgression proportions based on empirical inference and simulated datasets (using SPLATCHE2)

Parameters						Introgression proportions (%)											Max.^a	Sign.^b
Set	K_G	K_T	G	M	A	Mean	ALT	SEV	PAN	CBR	CRE	VLP	MAD	VAL	SOR	NAV
Empirical
ELAI	–	–	–	–	–	2.0	1.3	1.6	1.5	1.9	1.9	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.4	–	–
Simulated
par1	1000	500	0.5	0.2	0.005	3.9	4.0	4.0	3.9	3.9	3.9	4.0	4.0	3.9	4.0	3.9	70	35
par2	1000	500	0.5	0.02	0.005	8.5	7.0	6.7	7.6	8.6	7.6	10.3	8.8	8.2	9.8	10.1	80	45
par3	1000	500	0.5	0.2	0.03	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	22.9	95	70
par4	1000	500	0.5	0.02	0.03	34.9	28.9	28.1	31.1	34.9	31.7	40.9	36.2	34.5	40.7	42.4	95	85
par5	10,000	5000	0.5	0.2	0.005	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	5.4	50	30
par6	10,000	5000	0.5	0.02	0.005	11.3	9.5	9.0	10.2	11.5	10.2	13.5	11.7	10.8	12.9	13.2	65	40
par7	10,000	5000	0.5	0.2	0.03	25.2	25.3	25.2	25.2	25.2	25.2	25.2	25.2	25.3	25.2	25.2	80	60
par8	10,000	5000	0.5	0.02	0.03	37.4	31.2	30.5	33.4	37.3	34.1	43.2	38.7	37.1	43.2	45.0	95	75

K_G L. granatensis deme carrying capacity, K_T L. timidus deme carrying capacity, G intrinsic growth rate (same for L. timidus and L. granatensis), M migration rates between adjacent demes (same for L. timidus and L. granatensis), A bidirectional admixture. Population names are as in Fig. 1a and Additional file 1: Table S1. ^aMaximum introgression frequency (across the 10 individuals) in percentage. ^bIntrogression frequency (in percentage) above which empirical introgression frequencies are significantly higher than expected according to simulations

ISSN: 1474-760X