The phrase "a pair of environments" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to two distinct settings or contexts that are being compared or analyzed together.
Example: "In our study, we examined a pair of environments: the urban landscape and the rural countryside."
Alternatives: "two environments" or "a couple of environments".
The UNIFRAC metric measures the distance between communities as the percentage of branch length that leads to descendants from only one of a pair of environments represented in a single phylogenetic tree, i.e. the fraction of evolution that is unique to one of the microbial communities.
Mapping GEIs, a highly sensitive way to detect QTL contributing to variation between a pair of environments (Bhatia et al. 2014), was used to identify alleles with antagonistic effects.
The interaction model is not free of limitations; in particular, it is important to note that the genetic covariance between any pair of environments is represented by the variance of the main effect; therefore, it is restricted to being positive and the same for all pairs of environments analyzed jointly.
When 3 min are given, the transition of trade-offs from weak to strong occurs at a much more similar pair of environments.
The model used to estimate line mean-basis heritability in the combined data set was further modified by nesting the random line effect within environment and modeling the genotype-by-environment effect (G) matrix as unstructured, thereby allowing estimation of unique genetic variance within each environment and a unique genetic correlation between each pair of environments.
The model used to estimate repeatability on genotype mean basis in the combined data was modified by nesting the random genotype effect within environment and by modeling the genotype environment effect (G) matrix as unstructured, thereby allowing estimation of unique genetic variance within each environment and a unique genetic correlation between each pair of environments.
Results of the mixed model analysis that estimate unique genotypic covariances for each pair of environments indicated that the two Galicia environments had a much stronger genotypic correlation (r = 0.93; Table 1 and Figure S2) than did any other pair of environments (range, r = 0.28 to 0.51; Table 1 and Figure S2).
Estimates of genotypic covariance from the mixed model analysis for each trait and for each pair of environments showed that the two Manhattan environments had a much stronger genotypic correlation for all parameters (Table 2) than did any other pair of environments.
The ith genetic correlation was from the same pair of environments for both models and n was equal to six, because with four environments there are six genetic correlations.
Finally, in W1, the pair of environments with the largest sample phenotypic correlation (0iBN + 2iBN) had estimates of variance components such that the main effect explained about 80% of the total genomic variance.
