2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2017.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using genetic structure data and phylogenetic criteria in attributing prioritization scores for conservation of spontaneous Capparis spinosa L. populations from Tunisia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(4 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(49 reference statements)
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the current study, once the phylogenetic and genetic data were standardized separately, different and inconclusive conservation inferences were obtained. This outcome is in accordance with those documented in Delgado et al (2008) and Chibani et al (2017). The limitation of the phylogenetic data is indeed due to the heterogeneous difference levels among the terminal and basal populations (Crozier 1992).…”
Section: Genetic and Phylogenetic Data To Attribute Conservation Scoressupporting
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In the current study, once the phylogenetic and genetic data were standardized separately, different and inconclusive conservation inferences were obtained. This outcome is in accordance with those documented in Delgado et al (2008) and Chibani et al (2017). The limitation of the phylogenetic data is indeed due to the heterogeneous difference levels among the terminal and basal populations (Crozier 1992).…”
Section: Genetic and Phylogenetic Data To Attribute Conservation Scoressupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Firstly, phylogenetic importance was deduced as described by Vane-Wright et al (1991), with some modifications in the study of Delgado et al (2008), by calculating PTI (taxic diversity index) using two parameters: population grouping (PG), as the number of nodes available in the phylogram and basic population weight (BPW), as the sum of PG divided by the PG value of each population. All basic population weights were standardized, as described previously by Delgado et al (2008) and Chibani et al (2017). The genetic data was used to separate the populations displaying the same phylogenetic scores by attributing 1 to the smallest population and the lowest inbreeding index to give them a larger emphasis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations