Table 1.
Allelic richness estimated by regression, coalescent and rarefaction
| Species | ID | Source data set | Estimated allelic richness | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of loci | N | A | Subsampling (n = 120) |
ρ (n = 120) |
θEwens (n = 120) |
θcoalescent (n = 120) |
Rarefaction (n = 120) |
||
| Microsatellites | |||||||||
| Picea rubens | PR1 | 6 | 180 | 13.00 | 11.06 | 11.04 | 11.98 | 9.23 | 10.68 |
| PR2 | 6 | 180 | 13.33 | 11.18 | 11.17 | 12.29 | 8.94 | 10.71 | |
| PR3 | 6 | 180 | 15.33 | 12.48 | 12.44 | 14.13 | 11.92 | 12.19 | |
| PR4 | 6 | 180 | 14.83 | 12.48 | 12.44 | 13.67 | 12.13 | 11.92 | |
| Picea glauca | PG1 | 6 | 105 | 22.83 | 21.13 | 21.30 | 23.49 | 35.74 | 20.96 |
| PG2 | 6 | 105 | 22.83 | 20.55 | 20.62 | 23.49 | 51.84 | 20.44 | |
| Pinus strobus | PS1 | 13 | 102 | 9.77 | 9.03 | 9.13 | 10.11 | 17.57 | 9.03 |
| PS2 | 13 | 102 | 9.23 | 8.67 | 8.73 | 9.55 | 15.91 | 8.68 | |
| Thuja occidentalis | TO1 | 6 | 100 | 7.83 | 7.18 | 7.17 | 8.14 | 12.26 | 7.17 |
| TO2 | 6 | 100 | 9.67 | 8.95 | 9.00 | 10.05 | 16.28 | 9.09 | |
| TO3 | 6 | 100 | 8.83 | 7.86 | 7.95 | 9.18 | 14.06 | 7.95 | |
| Allozymes | |||||||||
| Pinus strobus | PS1 | 15 | 95 | 3.20 | 2.97 | 2.98 | 3.38 | 3.34 | 2.93 |
| PS2 | 15 | 95 | 3.27 | 3.09 | 3.10 | 3.59 | 4.15 | 3.04 | |
Subsampling - allelic richness estimated by repeated random subsampling in pseudosimulated population data sets based on the empirical data. ρ - allelic richness predicted by the regression model (5). θEwens - Allelic richness predicted by the Ewens sampling formula (3), where θ was directly calculated from the empirical data set. θcoalescent - Allelic richness predicted by the Ewens sampling formula (3), where θ was estimated by coalescent approach from the empirical data set. Rarefaction - Allelic richness predicted by rarefaction of the source empirical data set to the sample size of n = 120.