Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 2.-Mean value of allelic richness (A) over all loci, values of observed (Ho) and <br />expected (HE) heterozygosity, and inbreeding coefficient (FIs) over all loci per sample. <br />(Included. in parentheses are the estimates of expected heterozygosity and. the inbreeding <br />coefficient prior to adjustments for null allele frequencies). <br />Sample A Ho HE FIs, <br />LVR 6.15 0.67 0.68 0.02 <br />UVR 6.22 0.71 0.67 (0.67) -0.05 (-0.05) <br />MOA 5.34 0.56 0.56 0.01 <br />DBR 6.11 0.68 0.67 (0.67) -0.02 (401) <br />DYC 6.28 0.65 0.67 0.03 <br />heterozygotes per sample based on observed allele frequencies and the principle of <br />Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Estimates of expected heterozygosity did not change when <br />the dataset was adjusted to account for null allele frequencies. In general, the values for <br />allelic richness and heterozygosity were similar among samples, except the values for the <br />Moapa River sample were lower. However, differences in mean allelic richness between <br />the Moapa River sample and samples from the Virgin River were not significantly <br />different when tested with the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test at a = 0.05 and adjusted for <br />multiple tests using the sequentially rejective Bonferrom method ( Rice 1989). <br />The samples from the Virgin River (upper and lower reaches combined, N = 65) <br />had 21 alleles not found in the Moapa River sample (N=66); in contrast the sample from <br />the Moapa River only had six alleles not found in the Virgin River samples. A <br />comparison of the samples from the Virgin River (upper and lower reaches combined, N <br />= 64) with the samples from Dexter (2005-6 year class and broodstock combined, N= <br />13