. 2017 Jul 21;18:68. doi: 10.1186/s12863-017-0534-2

Table 4.

Estimation of historic effective population size for different intervals between one and 100 generations ago for Method 1 (M1) using 1 cM = 1 Mb, Method 2 (M2) using a chromosome-specific ratio of cM per Mb and method 3 (M3) using the expected genetic position per SNP

Breed denomination	Method	N_e					Diff N_e
		1	5	20	50	100	N_e 100 – N_e 1
Romney	M1	78	263^ab	262^ab	333^ab	553	475
	M2	75	220^bc	171^bc	295^b	525	450
	M3	77	237^ac	188^ac	305^a	535	458
Coopworth	M1	50	119^ab	185^ab	293^ab	506	456
	M2	46	95^bc	139^bc	260^b	473	427
	M3	47	100^ac	150^ac	271^a	489	442
Perendale	M1	41	130^ab	210^ab	332^ab	573	532
	M2	39	106^bc	159^b	297^b	541	502
	M3	40	111^ac	170^a	308^a	555	515
Texel	M1	32	85^ab	134^ab	224^ab	391	359
	M2	30	67^bc	105^b	202^b	369	339
	M3	30	71^ac	110^a	205^a	373	343
CompRCP	M1	45	139^a	254^ab	399^ab	689	644
	M2	43	120^c	187^bc	349^b	636	593
	M3	43	124^ac	201^ac	362^a	652	609
CompRCPT	M1	27	86^ab	183^ab	315^ab	556	529
	M2	26	76^bc	148^b	291^b	537	511
	M3	26	78^ac	155^a	295^a	539	513
Comprcp2	M1	42	130^ab	267^ab	460^ab	811	769
	M2	41	111^bc	212^bc	415^b	766	725
	M3	41	113^ac	226^ac	439^a	806	765

^a,b,csignificant differences at α = 0.05 between N_e estimates in a breed for the same generation estimated using different methods