TABLE 3
FROM:
The Great Wall of China: a physical barrier to gene flow?
H Su, L-J Qu, K He, Z Zhang, J Wang, Z Chen and H Gu
BACK TO ARTICLETable 3. Analysis of molecular variation (AMOVA) for 11 subpopulations comparison
| Source of variation | df | Variance component | % Total | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CcaJN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 4.72 | 28.86 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| CcaJS | Within subpopulations | 38 | 11.65 | 71.14 | |
| UpuJN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 2.25 | 13.18 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| UpuJS | Within subpopulations | 42 | 14.85 | 86.82 | |
| ParJE | Among subpopulations | 1 | 2.26 | 14.31 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| ParJW | Within subpopulations | 38 | 13.53 | 85.69 | |
| ZjuJN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 2.38 | 18.91 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| ZjuJS | Within subpopulations | 31 | 10.21 | 81.09 | |
| VneJN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 3.38 | 19.04 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| VneJS | Within subpopulations | 38 | 14.38 | 80.96 | |
| HhiJN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 3.50 | 16.15 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| HhiJS | Within subpopulations | 21 | 18.16 | 83.85 | |
| CcaCN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 1.06 | 11.14 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| CcaCS | Within subpopulations | 36 | 12.21 | 88.86 | |
| UmaCN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 0.87 | 7.60 | <0.05 |
| vs | |||||
| UmaCS | Within subpopulations | 34 | 10.54 | 92.40 | |
| ParCN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 0.45 | 2.87 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| ParCS | Within subpopulations | 38 | 15.22 | 97.13 | |
| ZjuCN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 1.29 | 7.96 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| ZjuCS | Within subpopulations | 37 | 10.26 | 92.04 | |
| VneCN | Among subpopulations | 1 | 1.46 | 7.93 | <0.001 |
| vs | |||||
| VneCS | Within subpopulations | 41 | 16.90 | 92.07 |
df, degree of freedom. P-values are based on 1000 permutations of the original data set and represent the probability of a more extreme random value (Excoffier, 1993).
