ArticlePloS one2018
A DNA barcode reference library for Swiss butterflies and forester moths as a tool for species identification, systematics and conservation.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Activity profiles and their correlates in patients with localised renal and colorectal cancer shortly after treatment: a cross-sectional analysis.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Biodiversity Genomics Research Practices Require Harmonising to Meet Stakeholder Needs in Conservation.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Unique among high passes: Insights into the genetic uniqueness among butterflies of Ladakh Trans-Himalaya through DNA barcoding.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- Unique among high passes: Phylogenetic inferences from DNA barcoding of the butterResearch square · 2024Article
- Taxonomic Structure and Wing Pattern Evolution in theInsects · 2023Article
- Genomic evidence for three distinct species in theConservation genetics (Print) · 2023Article
- Genomics Reveal Admixture and Unexpected Patterns of Diversity in a Parapatric Pair of Butterflies.Genes · 2021Article
- High resolution DNA barcode library for European butterflies reveals continental patterns of mitochondrial genetic diversity.Communications biology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Butterfly monitoring and Red List programs in Switzerland rely on a combination of observations and collection records to document changes in species distributions through time. While most butterflies can be identified using morphology, some taxa remain challenging, making it difficult to accurately map their distributions and develop appropriate conservation measures. In this paper, we explore the use of the DNA barcode (a fragment of the mitochondrial gene COI) as a tool for the identification of Swiss butterflies and forester moths (Rhopalocera and Zygaenidae). We present a national DNA barcode reference library including 868 sequences representing 217 out of 224 resident species, or 96.9% of Swiss fauna. DNA barcodes were diagnostic for nearly 90% of Swiss species. The remaining 10% represent cases of para- and polyphyly likely involving introgression or incomplete lineage sorting among closely related taxa. We demonstrate that integrative taxonomic methods incorporating a combination of morphological and genetic techniques result in a rate of species identification of over 96% in females and over 98% in males, higher than either morphology or DNA barcodes alone. We explore the use of the DNA barcode for exploring boundaries among taxa, understanding the geographical distribution of cryptic diversity and evaluating the status of purportedly endemic taxa. Finally, we discuss how DNA barcodes may be used to improve field practices and ultimately enhance conservation strategies.
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.