Table 4. QTLs for Nle identified by two mapping methods in the present study.

Year	Method	QTL a	Chromosome	Position	Interval b	LOD	PVE c (%)	Add	Dom
2012	ICIM	Nle2.1	P2	10.00	Hpms1_106—CIDH197	3.53	5.48	0.42	-1.29
		Nle2.2	P2	79.00	EPMS677—CIDHjw1_24	22.79	48.32	3.16	-0.46
		Nle7.1	P7	42.00	CIDH66—Hpms1_166	3.17	4.55	0.78	-1.04
		Nle10.1	P10	36.00	CIDH607—CIDH619	2.90	5.19	1.02	-0.12
	CIM	Nle2.1	P2	10.20	CIDH197—PSE342	4.24	7.59	0.52	-1.36
		Nle2.2	P2	78.80	EPMS677—CIDHjw1–24	19.80	51.63	2.98	-0.84
		Nle10.2	P10	27.00	CIDH356—CIDH985	2.52	2.09	0.79	0.34
		Nle11.1	P11	57.60	CIDH799—CIDH146	2.54	3.32	-1.02	-0.21
2014	ICIM	Nle2.2	P2	82.00	CIDHjw1_24—CIDHjw2_2	26.53	58.79	3.78	1.21
	CIM	Nle2.2	P2	82.30	CIDHjw2_2—CIDHjw2_6	29.68	31.14	3.87	1.42

^a Two QTLs from the P10 were named Nle10.1 and Nle10.2, respectively, because the genetic distance between them was over 5 cM.

^b The marker that was closer to the peak of LOD was unlined.

^c PVE, phenotypic variation explained by the QTL.