Sentence examples for support for species from inspiring English sources

The concept of biodiversity applies to all types of organisms, including those perceived by humans as favorable and unfavorable; such public preferences are known to have strong effects on the level of public support for species conservation projects (Martin-Lopez et al. 2007; Mir et al. 2015).

Bacterial rRNA derived from the same dataset can, therefore, be used to provide additional support for species identification.

There are several possible complications with using bootstrap support for species monophyly as a metric for measuring barcoding success.

The very large interspecific distances that result from this approach have the potential to inflate support for species monophyly (e.g., where two distant taxa are each other's closest relatives in a given survey).

Nonetheless, we argue that the strength of support for species monophyly in a local context provides a useful comparative framework (benchmark) for predicting the relative DNA barcoding success of different regions, or combinations of them in a larger sample.

A high degree of correlation should exist between support for species monophyly and the ability of DNA barcoding marker systems to discriminate species, since the robustness of the branch that subtends a single species (representing a monophyletic cluster of populations) determines whether that species is distinct from closely related species, at least within the limits of sampling error.

He suggested that such a method "considers both incomplete lineage sorting and gene flow among populations, can integrate data from multiple loci, can determine species limits without having those limits defined a priori (i.e., it will allow one to discover unanticipated species from the molecular data), and can allow one to estimate the statistical support for species-level decisions".

These two taxa were described in 1907 as morphological species and, therefore, the support for their species status comes, not only from the multilocus analysis performed here, but also from previously described morphological differences [ 23– 27].

Within this Bayesian framework, readily interpretable probabilities, such as the posterior probabilities of species sets can be used to quantify the support for a species in the mixture.

However, lineage citrus 2 separated into one monophyletic well-supported (1.00 posterior probability) lineage.Little support for multiple species was obtained using the MDC approach.

albornozii, S. augustii, S. chancayense, S. dolichocremastrum, S. immite) are associated with series Piurana [ 1, 2], but Jacobs et al. [ 9] could not find support for these species to be included in one of the recognized Piurana species groups.