Table 3.
Results from the mixed mating system and pollen structure model analyses using MLTR and TwoGener, respectively, in one fragment (BP) and one continuous population (GB) ofPrunus virginiana
| Model | BP | GB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed mating (MLTR) | tm | 1·200 (0·002) | 0·994 (0·093) |
| ts | 0·887 (0·020) | 0·892 (0·025) | |
| tm – ts | 0·313 (0·079) | 0·102 (0·091) | |
| (0·303–0·323) | (0·056–0·148) | ||
| rp | 0·346 (0·053) | 0·180 (0·051) | |
| (0·319–0·373) | (0·154–0·206) | ||
| 1/rp | 2·9 | 5·5 | |
| Pollen pool structure | φFT | 0·163 | 0·130 |
| (TwoGener) | (0·150–0·180) | (0·129–0·145) | |
| Nep | 3·0 | 3·8 |
The parameter estimates included the multilocus outcrossing rate (tm), mean single-locus outcrossing rate (ts), biparental inbreeding rate (tm – ts), correlation of paternity (rp), paternity differentiation between families (φFT) and neighbourhood size as (1/rp) and Nep. Standard errors from the mixed mating model are shown in parentheses next to the estimates. 95 % confidence intervals are shown for tm – ts, rp and φFT.