Table 2.
Estimates of effective population size times mutation rate (N e μ) and number of migrants per generation (N e m) from the two CBD populations recognized in Geneland analysis
| Source population | Host population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| East coast | West coast | ||||
| N e μ | 0.400 | (0.367–0.437) | 0.321 | (0.293–0.353) | |
| N e (low) | 2000 | (1836–2186) | 1605 | (1465–1766) | |
| N e (high) | 4001 | (3671–4371) | 3211 | (2930–3532) | |
| N e (low)/N | 0.054 | (0.05–0.059) | 0.046 | (0.042–0.05) | |
| N e (high)/N | 0.108 | (0.099–0.118) | 0.092 | (0.084–0.101) | |
| N e m | East coast | 0.057 | (0.046–0.070) | ||
| West coast | 0.106 | (0.089–0.125) | |||
The N e is calculated assuming that the average microsatellite mutation rate (μ) is 0.01% for N e (high) and 0.02% for N e (low). The ratio of effective to census population size (N e/N) is calculated using the census population size (N) estimated for the “Japanese Coastal” population (N = 37,000; Miyashita 1993) for the East Coast Cluster, and the N for the CBD in the southwestern Japanese waters (N = 35,000; Kasuya 2011) for West Coast Cluster. The 2.5th and 97.5th profile likelihood estimates are given in parentheses