Chromosome Atlas: Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles and Birds 1971
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-38220-2_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Salvelinus namaycush

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Alignments to the yellow perch genome for yellow perch and walleye, which shares the same karyotype (Danzmann, 1979 ), were conducted in BLASTN (Camacho et al, 2009 ); the best alignment for each locus was retained, and all alignments had e‐values <1 e −51 . Chromosome numbers for species where genomes were not available are as follows: N = 23 for smallmouth bass (Beçak et al, 1971 ), N = 24 for rock bass (Avise & Gold, 1977 ), and N = 50 for white sucker (Beçak et al, 1973 ). N e calculations using the linkage disequilibrium method can be biased slightly downward when individuals from multiple cohorts are included in the sample due to a slight Wahlund effect (7% downward bias on average; Waples et al, 2014 ), but this small bias should not greatly affect the interpretation of the N e results.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alignments to the yellow perch genome for yellow perch and walleye, which shares the same karyotype (Danzmann, 1979 ), were conducted in BLASTN (Camacho et al, 2009 ); the best alignment for each locus was retained, and all alignments had e‐values <1 e −51 . Chromosome numbers for species where genomes were not available are as follows: N = 23 for smallmouth bass (Beçak et al, 1971 ), N = 24 for rock bass (Avise & Gold, 1977 ), and N = 50 for white sucker (Beçak et al, 1973 ). N e calculations using the linkage disequilibrium method can be biased slightly downward when individuals from multiple cohorts are included in the sample due to a slight Wahlund effect (7% downward bias on average; Waples et al, 2014 ), but this small bias should not greatly affect the interpretation of the N e results.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%