Table 4.
Comparison on genetic diversity of populations of 3 generations of C. putoensis.
| Populations | N a | N e | H o | H e | I | Fi | AR | PA | Fis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 6.400 ± 1.073 | 2.838 ± 0.366 | 0.565 ± 0.107 | 0.525 ± 0.074 | 1.124 ± 0.171 | 0.003 ± 0.114 | 6.400 ± 4.154 | 1.340 ± 1.403 | -0.065 ± 0.441 |
| F2 | 7.867 ± 1.158 | 3.424 ± 0.479 | 0.563 ± 0.094 | 0.627 ± 0.053 | 1.366 ± 0.152 | 0.172 ± 0.134 | 7.840 ± 4.464 | 1.400 ± 1.982 | 0.114 ± 0.517 |
| F3 | 9.200 ± 1.114 | 4.228 ± 0.526 | 0.603 ± 0.084 | 0.700 ± 0.043 | 1.578 ± 0.144 | 0.121 ± 0.114 | 9.160 ± 4.288 | 2.590 ± 1.909 | 0.150 ± 0.441 |
| Mean | 7.822 ± 0.652 | 3.497 ± 0.274 | 0.577 ± 0.054 | 0.617 ± 0.035 | 1.356 ± 0.092 | 0.103 ± 0.069 | 7.800 ± 1.380 | 1.777 ± 0.705 | 0.066 ± 0.115 |
N a, number of alleles; N e, effective number of alleles; H o, observed heterozygosity; H e, expected heterozygosity; I, Shannon’s information index; Fi , Fixation index; AR , allelic richness; PA , private allelic richness; Fis , inbreeding coefficient.