Table 2.
Analyses of conservation priorities for Chinese indigenous goat breeds
| Breeds1) | WEDs | Bootstrap | WLM | PCHe | PCWeitz | PCFst | PC5:1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLS | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.047 | 2.81 | 0.349 | 2.333 |
| MGS | 0.0243 | 0.0211 | 0 | −0.007 | 3.76 | 0.515 | 3.131 |
| YLS | 0.0073 | 0.0143 | 0.0419 | −0.035 | 1.58 | 0.189 | 1.310 |
| ZTS | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.098 | 1.96 | 0.187 | 1.616 |
| GZS | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.161 | 2.67 | 0.232 | 2.197 |
| LNS | 0.1361 | 0.1324 | 0.1264 | 0.258 | 3.71 | 0.736 | 3.133 |
| CDM | 0.0048 | 0.0063 | 0.0242 | 0.121 | 6.71 | 1.034 | 5.610 |
| LLY | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.047 | 3.71 | 0.473 | 3.083 |
| LZS | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.148 | 6.57 | 0.783 | 5.448 |
| MGR | 0.1622 | 0.1613 | 0.1071 | 0.307 | 7.00 | 1.235 | 5.882 |
| CDS | 0.0229 | 0.0227 | 0.0964 | 0.173 | 2.81 | 0.538 | 2.370 |
| XJS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.071 | 2.86 | 0.457 | 2.394 |
| XZS | 0.0352 | 0.0255 | 0.0406 | 0.227 | 5.45 | 0.951 | 4.578 |
| ZWS | 0.0877 | 0.0972 | 0.0781 | 0.074 | 2.79 | 0.450 | 2.336 |
| SNB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.086 | 3.66 | 0.581 | 3.063 |
| HWS | 0.2017 | 0.2027 | 0.0853 | 0.223 | 5.6 | 0.969 | 4.702 |
| JNQ | 0.1488 | 0.1469 | 0.2621 | 0.363 | 2.21 | 0.619 | 1.902 |
| YMH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.035 | 2.04 | 0.313 | 1.705 |
| LBB | 0.1353 | 0.1296 | 0.1007 | 0.182 | 4.56 | 0.789 | 3.829 |
| THS | 0 | 0 | 0.0181 | −0.014 | 1.94 | 0.256 | 1.614 |
| CJB | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.071 | 3.34 | 0.402 | 2.770 |
| MTS | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.195 | 3.49 | 0.316 | 2.875 |
| YCB | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.124 | 4.14 | 0.467 | 3.428 |
| XDH | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.218 | 2.52 | 0.161 | 2.063 |
| FQS | 0.0337 | 0.04 | 0.0193 | −0.200 | 2.67 | 0.198 | 2.191 |
| DYS | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.207 | 3.49 | 0.305 | 2.873 |
Contribution made by each breed to total genetic diversity for 26 Chinese indigenous goat breeds based on methods.
MEK, marker-estimated kinships; WEDs, which vary based on weighted equal drift similarity; Bootstrap, WEDS with bootstrap procedure; WLM, weighted log-linear model; PCweitz, Weitzman approach; PCHe, proportion of expected heterozygosity; PCFst, aggregate methods based on Fst; and PC5:1, the Piyasation and Kinghorn formula. Values representing high contributions to genetic diversity are shown in boldface.
LLS, Longling yellow goat; MGS, Maguan poll goat; YLS, Yuling goat; ZTS, Zhaotong goat; GZS, Guizhou White goat; LNS, Liaoning Cashmere goat; CDM, Chengdu Brown goat; LLY, Longlin goat; LZS, Leizhou goat; MGR, Inner Mongolia Cashmere goat; CDS, Chaidamu goat; XJS, Xinjiang goat; XZS, Tibetan goat; ZWS, Zhongwei goat; SNB, Shannan White goat; HWS, Huanghuai goat; JNQ, Jining Gray goat; YMH, Yimeng Black goat; LBB, Lubei White goat; THS, Taihang goat; CJB, Yangtse River Delta White goat; MTS, Matou goat; YCB, Yichang White goat; XDH, Xiangdong Black goat; FQS, Fuqing goat; DYS, Daiyun goat.