Table 4. Diversity indices calculated based on RFLP patterns.
| Library | N | n | Chao1 | Coverage (%) | Shannon |
| chibwantu1 | 48 | 4 | 4.5 (4.0–12.3) | 96 | 0.39 (0.10–0.67) |
| chibwantu2 | 48 | 6 | 6.5 (6.0–14.3) | 96 | 1.10 (0.81–1.38) |
| chibwantu8 | 46 | 13 | 13.6 (13.1–20.1) | 93 | 2.20 (1.93–2.47) |
| mabisi1 | 49 | 6 | 6* | 98 | 1.53 (1.35–1.70) |
| mabisi10 | 47 | 9 | 9.25 (9.0–13.8) | 96 | 1.53 (1.20–1.86) |
| mabisi5 | 49 | 7 | 7* | 98 | 1.36 (1.06–1.66) |
| munkoyo5 | 44 | 5 | 6 (5.1–18.5) | 95 | 0.77 (0.44–1.09) |
| munkoyo9 | 50 | 3 | 3* | 98 | 0.63 (0.44–0.83) |
Numbers between brackets show 95% confidence intervals. N: number of patterns analysed; n: number of observed unique patterns; Chao: estimation of the total number of unique types in the population; * indicates that the rarefaction curve reached saturation; coverage: fraction that our sampling covers from total number of types; Shannon: Shannon diversity index.