Table 1. Site characteristics and genetic diversity indices of B. tabaci Q populations.
| Locality | Code | Date | Host | N | Na | Ne | Ho | He | Nei | Fis | Pwil |
| Haidian, Beijing | BJ | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 42 | 4.80 | 2.0739 | 0.2762 | 0.4420 | 0.4367 | 0.3780 | 0.0313 |
| Shijiazhuang, Hebei | HeB | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 35 | 3.80 | 2.3014 | 0.2649 | 0.4841 | 0.4771 | 0.4576 | 0.8906 |
| Changchun, Jilin | JL | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato | 45 | 4.60 | 2.2124 | 0.3627 | 0.4830 | 0.4776 | 0.2502 | 0.4063 |
| Yuncheng, Shanxi | SX | 2011.8 | Eggplant, cotton | 23 | 4.40 | 2.6189 | 0.2917 | 0.5034 | 0.4923 | 0.4247 | 0.4063 |
| Yangling, Shanxi | SSX | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 36 | 5.60 | 2.0976 | 0.4285 | 0.4306 | 0.4244 | 0.1766 | 0.4063 |
| Minhang, Shanghai | SH | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato | 30 | 4.80 | 2.2474 | 0.2692 | 0.4641 | 0.4563 | 0.4248 | 0.0469 |
| Zhongan, Liaoning | LN | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 18 | 4.60 | 2.5085 | 0.3778 | 0.5613 | 0.5457 | 0.3333 | 0.3125 |
| Jinan, Shandong | SD | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, Japanese hop | 43 | 5.00 | 2.2808 | 0.3628 | 0.4909 | 0.4852 | 0.2633 | 0.1094 |
| Wuhe, Tianjin | TJ | 2011.8 | Tomato | 11 | 3.60 | 2.1810 | 0.2545 | 0.4597 | 0.4388 | 0.4584 | 0.1094 |
| Sanshigang, Anhui | AH | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 28 | 5.20 | 2.3981 | 0.2672 | 0.4830 | 0.4743 | 0.4498 | 0.0469 |
| Luoyang, Henan | HeN | 2011.8 | Tomato, cotton | 11 | 3.80 | 2.2943 | 0.2727 | 0.4987 | 0.4760 | 0.4652 | 0.1563 |
| Nanjing, Jiangsu | JS | 2011.8 | Eggplant, cotton, tomato | 45 | 5.20 | 2.5804 | 0.4698 | 0.5665 | 0.5601 | 0.1724 | 0.6875 |
| Nanchang, Jiangxi | JX | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato | 30 | 4.80 | 2.2853 | 0.3069 | 0.4746 | 0.4666 | 0.3530 | 0.1094 |
| Nanning, Guangxi | GX | 2011.8 | Cucumber, tomato | 20 | 4.20 | 2.5676 | 0.3600 | 0.4946 | 0.4822 | 0.2773 | 0.4063 |
| Beipei, Chongqing | CQ | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato | 29 | 4.20 | 2.8972 | 0.2916 | 0.5642 | 0.5544 | 0.4886 | 0.8906 |
| Haikou, Hainan | HaiN | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato | 21 | 4.40 | 2.4917 | 0.2762 | 0.5189 | 0.5065 | 0.4730 | 0.3125 |
| Changsha, Hunan | HuN | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 42 | 5.80 | 2.7371 | 0.2158 | 0.5247 | 0.5183 | 0.5945 | 0.1094 |
| Wuhan, Hubei | HuB | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 45 | 5.20 | 3.0546 | 0.4432 | 0.6004 | 0.5937 | 0.2650 | 0.8906 |
| Tulufan, Xinjiang | XJ | 2011.8 | Eggplant, tomato, cotton | 39 | 4.20 | 2.5042 | 0.4333 | 0.5410 | 0.5341 | 0.1896 | 0.8906 |
| Kunming, Yunnan | YN | 2012.8 | Eggplant, pepper | 26 | 3.20 | 1.9330 | 0.3846 | 0.3977 | 0.3901 | 0.0336 | 0.8438 |
| Mean±SD | 31.0±11.2 | 4.57±0.67 | 2.4133±0.2806 | 0.3305±0.0741 | 0.4992±0.0504 | 0.4895±0.0504 | 0.3464±0.1396 | ||||
| Total | 619 | 10.60 | 2.8389 | 0.3405 | 0.5672 | 0.5668 | 0.3431 |
For each sample, the following are indicated: sampling site, population code, date of collection, host plant, sample size (N), average number of alleles per locus (Na), the effective number of alleles (Ne), the observed heterozygosity (Ho), the expected heterozygosity (He), and Nei's expected heterozygosity (Nei), estimator of the fixation index (Fis), and the Wilcoxon test P value for heterozygosity deficit compared to expectations at mutation-drift equilibrium (Pwil). Significant values for Fis and for heterozygosity deficiency are in bold.