ArticleScientific reports2026
High utility of DNA barcoding for species identification and cryptic diversity in Korean aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae).
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aphids (family Aphididae) are among the most species-rich groups of Sternorrhyncha in the order Hemiptera, and have a complex life cycle that can include several different phenotypes that are perfectly adapted to specific ecological niches. However, because aphids have a small body size, indistinct appearance, and cryptic adult behavior, their species level identification is often difficult and may be time-consuming. To overcome these limitations, DNA barcoding has been employed as an effective tool for species identification. In this study, we conducted a DNA barcoding test based on 566 specimens of Korean Aphididae, representing 125 morphospecies. Based on intraspecific genetic divergence, a threshold of 2% was estimated to efficiently differentiate the morphospecies. Only 87 morphospecies (69.6%) identified across four species delimitation methods (namely, automatic barcode gap discovery, assemble species by automatic partitioning, Poisson-tree-processes or PTP, and Bayesian implementation of the PTP) were consistent with the morphological identifications of the species. This indicates the presence of many cases of cryptic diversity among the other morphospecies, except the abovementioned 87 species. Careful morphological examination of morphospecies exceeding 2.0% intraspecific variability revealed cryptic diversity in three species (Eriosoma yangi, Tuberculatus kuricola, and Greenidea kuwanai). Two morphospecies, Sitobion avenae and Aphis craccivora, also exhibited high intraspecific divergence and comprised a single molecular operational taxonomic unit. Overall, our findings indicate that DNA barcoding can be a powerful tool for identifying species belonging to the family Aphididae, while also revealing cases of cryptic diversity.
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.