Skip to main content
. 2013 Apr 18;6(5):778–794. doi: 10.1111/eva.12064

Table 3.

Mean genetic diversity parameters and fixation index (F) for unharvested control and postharvest natural regeneration of white spruce in the conifer‐dominated (CD) and mixed‐wood (MW) forest based on 10 microsatellite loci

HT A T A A e A R A P H o H e F
CD
CON 112.0 11.20 6.50 10.66 0.5 0.492 0.639 0.175
75R 114.5 11.45 7.15 10.38 0.5 0.529 0.656 0.191
50R 108.5 10.85 6.87 9.90 0.5 0.572 0.675 0.152
20R 108.5 10.85 6.14 9.84 0.5 0.523 0.639 0.161
10R 109.5 10.95 7.12 10.28 1.0 0.557 0.659 0.162
CCT 112.5 11.25 6.49 10.05 1.5 0.526 0.666 0.197
MW
CON 114.0 11.40 6.21 10.24 1.0 0.537 0.656 0.171
75R 115.5 11.55 7.28 10.66 0.5 0.536 0.669 0.208
50R 114.5 11.45 6.90 10.40 0.5 0.545 0.651 0.140
20R 111.0 11.10 6.74 10.44 0.0 0.523 0.648 0.202
10R 109.0 10.90 6.82 9.71 1.0 0.440 0.645 0.253
CCT 116.5 11.65 7.03 9.84 0.0 0.553 0.658 0.127
Mean CD 110.9 11.09 6.71 10.20 0.7 0.533 0.655 0.173
Mean MW 113.8 11.38 6.83 10.30 0.5 0.529 0.655 0.177

Details of harvesting treatments (HT) are provided in Table 1. A T, total number of alleles; A, mean number of alleles per locus; A e, effective number of alleles per locus; A R, allelic richness; A P, private alleles; H o, mean observed heterozygosity; H e, mean expected heterozygosity. anova did not show any significant differences among harvesting treatments for all eight parameters (Table S4).