ReviewZooKeys2015
Looking back on a decade of barcoding crustaceans.
Review in ZooKeys, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogenetic Diversity of the Red Swamp CrayfishBiology · 2023Article
- Extremely divergent COI sequences within an amphipod species complex: A possible role for endosymbionts?Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Molecular features ofParasitology · 2022Article
- DNA barcoding allows identification of undescribed crab megalopas from the open sea.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Documenting decapod biodiversity in the Caribbean from DNA barcodes generated during field training in taxonomy.Biodiversity data journal · 2020Article
- DNA barcoding in the Southeast Pacific marine realm: Low coverage and geographic representation despite high diversity.PloS one · 2020Article
- Habitat requirements affect genetic variation in three species of mayfly (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae) from South Africa.ZooKeys · 2020Article
- DNA barcoding of southern African crustaceans reveals a mix of invasive species and potential cryptic diversity.PloS one · 2019Article
- Morphological identification and molecular confirmation of the deep-sea blue and red shrimpPeerJ · 2019Article
- DNA Barcoding for Identification of Sugarcane Borers in China.Neotropical entomology · 2018Article
- Cryptic species in a well-known habitat: applying taxonomics to the amphipod genus Epimeria (Crustacea, Peracarida).Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Species identification and connectivity of marine amphipods in Canada's three oceans.PloS one · 2018Article
- Article
- Drastic underestimation of amphipod biodiversity in the endangered Irano-Anatolian and Caucasus biodiversity hotspots.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Article
- Identification, Discrimination, and Discovery of Species of Marine Planktonic Ostracods Using DNA Barcodes.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Species identification represents a pivotal component for large-scale biodiversity studies and conservation planning but represents a challenge for many taxa when using morphological traits only. Consequently, alternative identification methods based on molecular markers have been proposed. In this context, DNA barcoding has become a popular and accepted method for the identification of unknown animals across all life stages by comparison to a reference library. In this review we examine the progress of barcoding studies for the Crustacea using the Web of Science data base from 2003 to 2014. All references were classified in terms of taxonomy covered, subject area (identification/library, genetic variability, species descriptions, phylogenetics, methods, pseudogenes/numts), habitat, geographical area, authors, journals, citations, and the use of the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD). Our analysis revealed a total number of 164 barcoding studies for crustaceans with a preference for malacostracan crustaceans, in particular Decapoda, and for building reference libraries in order to identify organisms. So far, BOLD did not establish itself as a popular informatics platform among carcinologists although it offers many advantages for standardized data storage, analyses and publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.