Table 4. HFC comparisons following Szulkin et al., (2010).
| HFC estimations | Height (cm) | Hi | g2 | f | r2ω,Hi | βω,Hia | r2ω,f | βω,fa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All seedlings | 30.66 (13.03)b | 0.63 (0.034)b | 0.016 (±0.01)c | 0.031 (±0.02)c | 0.01 | 2.01 | 0.01 | −6.95 |
| Diseased only | 23.67 (10.25)b | 0.63 (0.029)b | 0.016 (±0.01)c | 0.031 (±0.02)c | 0.03 | 13.20 | 0.12 | −39.10 |
Abbreviation: HFC, heterozygosity–fitness correlation.
a
in units of plant growth (cm).
b
s.d.
c
95% confidence limit.
The elements denoted in the table are as follows: Growth, mean block adjusted growth; Hi, mean individual heterozygosity; g2, inter-locus heterozygosity correlation inferred from the MLTR selfing rate implemented in equation 4 in David et al., (2007); f, inbreeding estimate derived from the MLTR selfing rate where f=s/(2−s); r2ω,Hi, the variation in fitness explained by heterozygosity; βω,Hi, regression slope of fitness-heterozygosity regression; r2ω,f, variation in fitness explained by inbreeding; βω,f, regression slope of fitness-inbreeding, the inbreeding load; variance parameters in parentheses.