problem in estimation of additive variance?

[jgx65]

Hi all, it also seems there is a problem with the estimation of VaW. for a purely additive trait with no environmental variance, I expect VaW=VgW=VpW. In test simulations, I find VaW>VgW=VpW. I paste below the ini file and the resulting statistics:

# Simulations
generations 200
replicates 10
folder "test"
random_per_replicate 1

# Metapopulation
patch_number 12
patch_capacity 50
dispersal_rate 0.02

# Neutral loci
ntrl_loci 10
ntrl_all 2
ntrl_mutation_model  0
ntrl_mutation_rate 1e-5

# Quantitative trait
quanti_nb_trait 1
quanti_loci 10
quanti_all  2
quanti_mutation_model  2
quanti_mutation_rate 1e-5
quanti_allelic_var 0.05
quanti_environmental_model 0
quanti_heritability 0
quanti_environmental_proportion 1
quanti_va_model 1   

stat_log_time 200
stat {n.adlt.fst.wc q.adlt.fst.wc q.VaW q.VgW q.VpW q.VgB q.VpB q.qst q.meanG_p q.varA_p}

And the stats file:

replicate       generation      n.adlt.fst.wc   q.adlt.fst.wc   q.VaW           q.VgW           q.VpW
1               200             0.1373          0.1966          0.7751          0.6275          0.6275
2               200             0.1893          0.188           0.7864          0.6116          0.6116
3               200             0.2179          0.2264          0.7755          0.6038          0.6038
4               200             0.2027          0.2094          1.056           0.7424          0.7424
5               200             0.1965          0.1918          0.882           0.7359          0.7359
6               200             0.1586          0.1523          1.016           0.8086          0.8086
7               200             0.2141          0.2213          0.9971          0.7512          0.7512
8               200             0.2283          0.2573          0.8739          0.6761          0.6761
9               200             0.138           0.1874          0.8212          0.6964          0.6964
10              200             0.1505          0.1579          0.8709          0.7097          0.7097

[frederic-michaud]

Hi Jérôme,

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with all these notations anymore, and I'm not sure what are the hypothesis for your claim to be exactly correct.
However, one easy way out is to set

quanti_va_model 2

(There is a typo in the manual about this)