ArticleMolecular ecology2025
Species Delimitation Using Genomic Data: Options and Limitations.
Article in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Turrill's Omega: A Heuristic Index for Quantifying the Support of a Taxonomic Hypothesis.Biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Species delimitation within the Achnanthidium minutissimum complex (Bacillariophyta), based on morphological, molecular, and ecophysiological approaches.Journal of phycology · 2026Article
- Molecular identification and diversity assessment of Tyrrhenian Romulea species (Iridaceae).PloS one · 2026Article
- A Deep Metagenomic Snapshot as a Proof-of-Concept for Resource Generation: Simultaneous Assembly of Host, Food, and Microbiome Genomes From Stingless Bee Larval Food.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most effective approaches for species discovery and species validation with genomic data remain underexplored. This study evaluates the merits and limitations of phylogenetic approaches based on the multispecies coalescent model and population genetic approaches for species discovery, i.e., species delimitation in the absence of prior knowledge, using genomic datasets from four well-known radiations. Furthermore, it demonstrates how geographic data can be integrated with the genomic data for species validation, i.e., for testing primary species hypotheses. The multispecies coalescent model-based approaches tr2 and soda resulted in high over-splitting of species, low percentages of species delimited according to the current classification, and low percentages of individuals assigned to the same species as in the current classification across all four species complexes studied. Conversely, the species numbers were slightly underestimated based on the structure results. Although the proportion of species delimited according to the current classification and the proportion of individuals assigned to the same species as in the current classification in the classifications based on the structure results is approximately twice that of the classifications proposed by the multispecies coalescent model-based approaches, it remains unsatisfactory. A slight over-splitting of species into population groups can be corrected by species validation with isolation-by-distance tests if a sufficient number of populations have been sampled for each species. Sampling design is an essential step in any taxonomic study, as it has a significant impact on the delimitation of the species and the possibility of their validation.
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.