Table 6.
Ratio of the two mating types within subpopulations at three different spatial scales.
| Scale | Subpopulation | Raw Data | Clone-Corrected Data | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAT1-1 | MAT1-2 | χ2 (p) a | p b | MAT1-1 | MAT1-2 | χ2 (p) | p | ||
| Province | FJ | 11 | 13 | 0.167 (0.683) | 0.839 | 11 | 13 | 0.167 (0.683) | 0.839 |
| GZ | 15 | 15 | 0.000 (1) | 1 | 15 | 14 | 0.034(0.853) | 1 | |
| JX | 13 | 17 | 0.533 (0.465) | 0.585 | 13 | 17 | 0.533 (0.465) | 0.585 | |
| ZJ | 17 | 11 | 1.286 (0.257) | 0.345 | 16 | 11 | 0.926(0.336) | 0.442 | |
| HN | 14 | 16 | 0.133 (0.715) | 0.856 | 14 | 15 | 0.034(0.853) | 1 | |
| Total | 70 | 72 | 0.028 (0.867) | 0.933 | 69 | 70 | 0.007(0.932) | 1 | |
| Orchard | O1 | 9 | 16 | 1.960 (0.162) | 0.23 | 8 | 15 | 2.130(0.144) | 0.21 |
| O2 | 14 | 10 | 0.667 (0.414) | 0.541 | 13 | 10 | 0.391(0.532) | 0.678 | |
| O3 | 12 | 16 | 0.571(0.450) | 0.572 | 12 | 16 | 0.571(0.450) | 0.572 | |
| O4 | 9 | 16 | 1.960(0.162) | 0.23 | 9 | 16 | 1.960(0.162) | 0.23 | |
| Total | 44 | 58 | 1.992(0.166) | 0.198 | 42 | 57 | 2.273(0.132) | 0.159 | |
| Tree | T1 | 7 | 9 | 0.250(0.617) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 0.40(0.527) | 0.754 |
| T2 | 6 | 11 | 1.471 (0.225) | 0.332 | 6 | 11 | 1.471 (0.225) | 0.332 | |
| T3 | 10 | 14 | 0.667(0.414) | 0.541 | 10 | 14 | 0.667(0.414) | 0.541 | |
| T4 | 12 | 6 | 2.000 (0.157) | 0.238 | 11 | 5 | 2.25(0.134) | 0.21 | |
| T5 | 12 | 8 | 0.8 (0.371) | 0.503 | 12 | 8 | 0.8 (0.371) | 0.503 | |
| Total | 47 | 48 | 0.011 (0.918) | 1 | 45 | 42 | 0.103(0.748) | 0.83 | |
a The p values in parentheses indicate if the ratio was significantly different to 1:1 (significant if p ≤ 0.05), calculated in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). b Probability from a two-tailed exact binomial analysis to test whether MAT frequencies deviate significantly from a 1:1 ratio, calculated in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).