3.5.1 ΔH indicator
Applying the ΔH indicator to the 29 separate populations, we
observe that five populations in four different systems exhibit
statistically significant decrease of diversity measures at a rate
higher than the 0.05 percent decrease per year limit for the genetic
status to be regarded as “Good” (Figure 7a). These populations exhibit
reductions between 0.06 and 0.83 percent per year in several diversity
measures, respectively (Table S3a). Population 3 in Skåarnja 1 is
classified as “Alarm” with respect to H E andP L, and as “Warning” with respect toN A. Population 4 in Skåarnja 1 is classified as
“Warning” with respect to H E. Population 1 in
Skåarnja 2 has lost allelic diversity (A R andN A) as well as expected heterozygosity
(H E) at a rate reflecting a retention of 70-94%
of genetic variation after 100 years classifying it as “Warning”. In
addition, this population has experienced a decrease in proportion of
polymorphic loci (P L) at a yearly rate of 0.74%
resulting in the classification “Alarm”. Population 3 in Hotagen 3 is
classified as “Warning” based on the rate of diversity loss ofA R, and N A, and as
“Alarm” based on loss rate of H E andH O. Finally, the population in Lake Saxvattnet
had experienced a significant decrease in H E,
with an estimated diversity retention of 89% after 100 years,
classifying this population as “Warning”. The remaining 24 populations
were classified as “Good” for all five diversity measures, and in
those, statistically significant increase of genetic diversity is
observed in eight populations representing four systems (Figure 7a).
When applying the indicators to metapopulations, all but two were
estimated to have retained more than 95% of genetic diversity after 100
years in all five measures and were classified as “Good”.
Metapopulations Skåarnja 2 lost a substantial amount of allelic
diversity and was classified as “Warning” with respect toA R, N A, and as “Alarm”
based on P L (Figure 7). It should be noted that
for Skåarnja 1, the green classification is due to the “new”
population that occurred in the 2010 sample but was not found in the
past sample (Figure 4; Figure S1).