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

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

Comparison¹	Source	d.f.	SS	Variance Components	% variation	Fixation index	P-value
a. CYTB-among regions	Among regions	3	27574	107.70	96.8	F_CT = 0.968	<0.0001
	Among sites within regions	28	823	2.61	2.34	F_ST = 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	F_CT = 0.712	0.0023
	Among sites within non-adjacent groups	5	28.3	0.41	6.24	F_ST = 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	F_CT = 0.965	0.009
	Among sites within regions	6	91.7	1.44	0.97	F_ST = 0.975	<0.0001
	Within sites	63	234.4	3.72	2.50		<0.0001

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.
²The Point Loma region contained only the SD site for the RISP results and was therefore not included as a separate group.

ISSN: 2730-7182