## 3 Results and Discussion
### Within-Population Diversity
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**No.** & **Locality** & \(M\) & \(F\) & \(n\) & \(N_{a}\) & \(N_{ar}\) & \(N_{pr}\) & \(N_{par}\) & \(H_{O}\) & \(H_{E}\) & \(F_{BS}\) & & \(P_{\text{Bottleneck}}\) \\ \hline P1 & Ozalj & 9 & 6 & 15 & 6.917 & 5.955 & 5 & 0.369 & 0.689 & 0.725 & 0.050 & ns & 0.575 \\ P2 & Rugvica & 5 & 5 & 10 & 6.500 & 6.500 & 1 & 0.168 & 0.767 & 0.769 & 0.004 & ns & 0.235 \\ P3 & Varazdin & 5 & 7 & 12 & 6.333 & 5.992 & 3 & 0.305 & 0.785 & 0.760 & \(-\)0.033 & ns & 0.117 \\ P4 & Kalnik & 4 & 8 & 12 & 6.833 & 6.362 & 5 & 0.474 & 0.736 & 0.771 & 0.045 & ns & 0.765 \\ P5 & Krizevč & 5 & 10 & 15 & 7.167 & 6.226 & 4 & 0.272 & 0.750 & 0.753 & 0.004 & ns & 0.575 \\ P6 & Ludbreg & 3 & 10 & 13 & 7.250 & 6.619 & 2 & 0.256 & 0.840 & 0.789 & \(-\)0.065 & ns & 0.396 \\ P7 & Prelog & 4 & 10 & 14 & 7.000 & 6.240 & 10 & 0.714 & 0.792 & 0.759 & \(-\)0.043 & ns & 0.311 \\ P8 & Novo & 3 & 7 & 10 & 6.500 & 6.500 & 8 & 0.713 & 0.800 & 0.750 & \(-\)0.067 & ns & 0.715 \\  & Vire & 4.750 & 7.875 & 12.630 & 6.813 & 6.299 & 4.75 & 0.409 & 0.770 & 0.759 & - & - \\  & Total & 38 & 63 & 101 & 12.667 & - & 38 & - & 0.767 & 0.768 & 0.001 & & 0.924 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(M\)—male plants; \(F\)—female plants; \(n\)—sample size; \(N_{a}\)—number of alleles; \(N_{ar}\)—allelic richness; \(N_{pr}\)—total number of private alleles; \(N_{par}\)—private allelic richness; \(H_{\text{O}}\)—observed heterozygosity; \(H_{E}\)—expected heterozygosity; \(F_{IS}\)—whe Breeding coefficient (”—non-significant value; \(p>0.05\)). \(P_{\text{Bottleneck}}\)—probability of heterozygosity excess using TPM (two-phase model) model indicating population bottleneck.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Sampling sites, genetic diversity and genetic bottleneck assessed from 12 microsatellite markers in eight wild _Humulus lupulus_ L. populations. the detected \(H_{O}\) and \(H_{E}\) were generally lower that the values obtained in our study, e.g., in wild Iranian hop populations \(H_{O}\) ranged from 0.31 to 0.82, and \(H_{E}\) ranged from 0.34 to 0.75 [38]. Furthermore, in wild populations from Central Italy [PERSON] et al. [37] observed \(H_{O}\) ranging from 0.522 to 0.656 and \(H_{E}\) ranging from 0.505 to 0.654. The outcrossing nature of this dioecious species and the predominant wind pollination mode [3] are probably responsible for the high genetic variation observed in wild hop populations in general. The patterns found are consistent with expectations for outcrossing wind-pollinated species and those with a wide geographical range [83,84]. [PERSON] et al. [37] suggest that hop seeds may also be frequently dispersed by water, as hop inhabits the area between terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, thus further promoting gene flow among populations. HWE was observed in all analyzed populations as the multilocus estimates of [PERSON]'s inbreeding coefficients (\(F_{IS}\)) showed no significant deviation from zero (\(p>0.05\)). The heterozygosity-excess method implemented in BOTTLENECK ([PERSON] signed rank test assuming a two-phased model) did not identify significant bottleneck in any of the studied populations. Treating all sampled plants as a single population, justified by lack of population differentiation (see below), the observed heterozygosity (\(H_{O}=0.767\)) was almost equal to the expected one (\(H_{E}=0.768\)) and the inbreeding coefficient (\(F_{IS}=0.001\)) was not significant. The same was true for the probability of heterozygosity excess as a sign of recent bottleneck events (\(P_{Bottleneck}=0.924\)).