Table 2.
Genetic diversity of 11 newly developed microsatellites in two native (United States) and two invasive (Asia) populations of Phytolacca americana.a
| Florida, USA (n = 25.9/26) | Illinois, USA (n = 17.7/18) | Anhui, China (n = 24.0/25) | Fukushima, Japan (n = 23.4/24) | All samples (n = 93) | |||||||||
| Locus | A | Hob | He | A | Hob | He | A | Hob | He | A | Ho | He | A |
| PW11 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| PW29 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
| PW46 | 3 | 0.12** | 0.53 | 3 | 0.00* | 0.20 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5 |
| PW53 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| PW54 | 2 | 1.00** | 0.50 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
| PW65 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| PW69 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 3 |
| PW79 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.12* | 0.48 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| PW106 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4 | 0.06** | 0.52 | 4 | 0.05** | 0.25 | 2 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 6 |
| PW182 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 |
| PW223 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.00* | 0.43 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3 |
Note: A = number of alleles; He = expected heterozygosity; Ho = observed heterozygosity; n = average number of individuals scored for all loci out of the total number of individuals attempted for a locality.
a
Locality and voucher information for the populations is available in Appendix 1.
b
An asterisk (*) indicates that the significance level for a χ2 test of Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) was P < 0.001. The double asterisk (**) indicates that the significance level for a χ2 test of HWE was P < 0.00001.