Bar-plot and L(K) graph. They seem to say different things? interpretation?

[Angela Parody]

I am studying a potential intra-specific population structure explained (potentially) by differences in breeding times. From the biology of this species I don't expect high structuring (I expect K=1 or 2), but it interests me to check whether there is structure given that individuals of this species breed at different times, and constantly (=meaning that there is an individuals consistency in breeding time, but along the species there is a one-month difference: individuals with similar breeding times would reproduce more often than individuals with extreme timing of breeding). 

For checking this, I run structure with my samples (27 microsatellites, individuals = 165). Birds were ordered by their time of breeding. Settings: NoPriorLocation; 1,000,000 Burning period; 500,000 MCMC. I run from K=1 to K=5, and 15 iterations. I got this graph of the L(K):

I can see that K=1 got higher value of L(K) than K=2, but still K=2 seems to be very close, and SD is not too high.  From these result I would say that STRUCTURE found weak genetic structure (something between K=1 and K=2).  Quite a bit what I was expecting. But, when I plot the bar-graph (using Clumpp and then Genesis) I got:

From the right to the left correspond from the earliest breeder to the latest breeder. Anyway...

I was expecting something different in this bar-plot since I don't see any evidences of a possible K = 2. What I mean is that the graphic of L(K) shows K=1 and an approximation to K=2, but the bar-plot shows (to me) that K = 1 and no evidences for K = 2. Could someone comment on how should be this plot interpreted? 

Thanks in advance! :)

'Angela

[Vikram Chhatre]

Can you compose a simple text email and include your plots as attachments instead of inline html objects?  The email format is too wide to read easily.

V

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "structure-software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structure-softw...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structure...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/structure-software.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Angela Parody]

Sure, see below: 

-----

I am studying a potential intra-specific population structure explained (potentially) by differences in breeding times. From the biology of this species I don't expect high structuring (I expect K=1 or 2), but it interests me to check whether there is structure given that individuals of this species breed at different times, and constantly (=meaning that there is an individuals consistency in breeding time, but along the species there is a one-month difference: individuals with similar breeding times would reproduce more often than individuals with extreme timing of breeding). 

For checking this, I run structure with my samples (27 microsatellites, individuals = 165). Birds were ordered by their time of breeding. Settings: NoPriorLocation; 1,000,000 Burning period; 500,000 MCMC. I run from K=1 to K=5, and 15 iterations. I got this graph of the L(K) (See figure1 attached)

I can see that K=1 got higher value of L(K) than K=2, but still K=2 seems to be very close, and SD is not too high.  From these result I would say that STRUCTURE found weak genetic structure (something between K=1 and K=2).  Quite a bit what I was expecting. But, when I plot the bar-graph (using Clumpp and then Genesis) I got (see figure2 attached)

From the right to the left correspond from the earliest breeder to the latest breeder. Anyway...

I was expecting something different in this bar-plot since I don't see any evidences of a possible K = 2. What I mean is that the graphic of L(K) shows K=1 and an approximation to K=2, but the bar-plot shows (to me) that K = 1 and no evidences for K = 2. Could someone comment on how should be this plot interpreted? 

Thanks in advance! :)

'Angela