Skip to main content

Table 2 Differences between regions, sites, and individuals for CYTB and RISP in an AMOVA

From: Investigations of fine-scale phylogeography in Tigriopus californicusreveal historical patterns of population divergence

Comparison1 Source d.f. SS Variance Components % variation Fixation index P-value
a. CYTB-among regions Among regions 3 27574 107.70 96.8 FCT = 0.968 <0.0001
  Among sites within regions 28 823 2.61 2.34 FST = 0.991 <0.0001
  Within sites 323 312 0.97 0.87   <0.0001
b. CYTB-within Palos Verdes Among non-adjacent groups 2 247.1 4.65 71.19 FCT = 0.712 0.0023
  Among sites within non-adjacent groups 5 28.3 0.41 6.24 FST = 0.774 <0.0001
  Within sites 74 109 1.47 22.57   <0.0001
c. RISP-among regions Among regions 22 6595 143.8 96.5 FCT = 0.965 0.009
  Among sites within regions 6 91.7 1.44 0.97 FST = 0.975 <0.0001
  Within sites 63 234.4 3.72 2.50   <0.0001
  1. 1For both (a) and (c) the levels tested are the regions, sites, and individuals. In (b) the Palos Verdes region is considered because for this region it is possible to define subregional grouping based on habitat and sampling schemes [adjacent groups were defined as follows: (AB, AB2, AB3, ABR), (RP1, RP2), and (FR1, FR2). AMOVA were conducted in Arlequin using pairwise distances between populations.
  2. 2The Point Loma region contained only the SD site for the RISP results and was therefore not included as a separate group.