DNA barcoding reveals extraordinary cryptic diversity in an amphipod genus: implications for desert spring conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA barcoding has revealed unrecognized species in several animal groups. In this study we have employed DNA barcoding to examine Hyalella, a taxonomically difficult genus of amphipod crustaceans, from sites in the southern Great Basin of California and Nevada, USA. We assessed the extent of species diversity using a species screening threshold (SST) set at 10 times the average intrapopulation cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) haplotype divergence. Despite the fact that this threshold approach is more conservative in delineating provisional species than the phylogenetic species concept, our analyses revealed extraordinary levels of cryptic diversity and endemism. The SST discriminated two provisional species within Hyalella sandra, and 33 provisional species within Hyalella azteca. COI nucleotide divergences among these provisional species ranged from 4.4% to 29.9%. These results have important implications for the conservation of life in desert springs - habitats that are threatened as a result of groundwater over-exploitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".