ArticlePloS one2026
An overview of DNA barcoding of biodiversity in South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prospects for Complete DNA Barcode Coverage of the New Zealand Insect Fauna.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
55 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global decline in biodiversity, driven by habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change, biological invasions, and illegal trade, poses significant challenges for conservation management. Although many South African ecosystems and species are under threat, effective conservation efforts are hindered by incomplete foundational biodiversity data and assessments, caused by taxonomic gaps and unverified distributions. DNA barcoding has emerged as an invaluable tool for species identification and classification of biodiversity. While substantial barcoding progress has been made, for many taxa, others remain underrepresented in sequence databases. This study evaluates the status and progress of DNA barcoding in South Africa through a gap analysis, comparing verified species checklists with barcoded sequences from the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD) and GenBank to assess taxonomic and geographic representation. A literature review (2003-2023) highlights applications across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats. Of the 931,476 South African species barcode records, 52% were publicly available. Although the insects dominated with the highest number of records and BINs, reptiles had the highest taxonomic representation. Plants and fungi were underrepresented (16.1% and 2.8%, respectively). Regionally, Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces showed the highest BIN counts, while North-West and Free State provinces had the lowest. The majority of barcode records were for mtDNA genes such as cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) and were contributed by both local and international institutions. Discrepancies between GenBank records and those mined by BOLD indicated that many GenBank sequences for South Africa have poor quality metadata, including geographic sampling locality information. While significant progress has been made across taxa, further efforts are needed to expand species and geographic coverage, enhance sequence quality, improve species metadata, and resolve inconsistencies in BIN assignments, particularly for underrepresented groups such as plants and fungi. These advances would strengthen biodiversity assessments and support conservation efforts in South Africa.
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.