Table 1.
female | relatedness coefficient (SM) | offspring, trial 1 | offspring, trial 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
male 1 | male 2 | male 1 | male 2 | male 2 | male 1 | |
1 | −0.28 (0.15) | 0a | 39 | 18 | 1 | 3 |
2 | −0.36 (0.16) | 0.50 (0.13) | 30 | 14 | 19 | 12 |
3 | 0a | 0.03 (0.15) | 15 | 4 | 7 | 17 |
4 | −0.55 (0.15) | −0.01 (0.16) | 22 | 8 | 23 | 36 |
5 | −0.40 (0.16) | 0.38 (0.14) | 26 | 6 | 3 | 19 |
6 | −0.59 (0.16) | −0.36 (0.15) | 11 | 10 | 15 | 17 |
7 | −0.59 (0.13) | 0.22 (0.15) | 20 | 8 | 14 | 15 |
8 | 0.26 (0.13) | 0.07 (0.15) | 13 | 19 | 12 | 9 |
9 | 0a | −0.20 (0.13) | 8 | 12 | — | — |
10 | 0.24 (0.15) | 0.02 (0.14) | 16 | 12 | — | — |
11 | −0.13 (0.14) | 0.06 (0.15) | 6 | 21 | — | — |
12 | −0.32 (0.15) | −0.16 (0.15) | 5 | 13 | — | — |
For these males, the AFLP profiles were not sufficiently scorable across the whole size range, and SM was set to the population average (zero). Paternity determination was possible based on the partial AFLP screens.