Agrilus restrictus — The Life Data

Animalia/Arthropoda/Insecta/Coleoptera/Buprestidae/Agrilus

At a glance

Occurrence records3

Data sources8

Biological traits0

DNA specimens1

eDNA detections1

Sources8 archives

Databases and archives Agrilus restrictus's data was compiled from.

WikipediaWikimedia Foundation3 languages↗

BioWikiNetmultilingual Wikipediamultilingual↗

GBIFGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility3 records↗

ENAEuropean Nucleotide Archive · EMBL-EBI1 eDNA detections↗

BOLD SystemsCentre for Biodiversity Genomics1 specimens↗

Open Tree of LifeOpenTreephylogeny backbone↗

Catalogue of LifeCOLtaxonomy↗

GLoBIGlobal Biotic Interactionsbiotic interactions↗

On this page4 sections

Every layer below draws on the sources above — open one to explore it, or use ← → to move between tabs.

NarrativeWikipediaarticle

Occurrence & distributionGBIF3 records

Environmental DNA1 datasets · 1 countries1 detections

DNA & barcodingBOLD1 specimens

01Narrative

Agrilus restrictus is a species of metallic wood-boring beetle in the family Buprestidae. It is found in Central America and North America.

No narrative description available for this taxon yet.

02Traits & measurements

No structured trait data for this taxon yet.

05DNA & barcoding1 specimens

A DNA barcode is a short, standardised stretch of genes that works like a fingerprint — enough to tell one species from another. Below is the molecular trace Agrilus restrictus has left across the world's sequence archives.

At a glance

DNA specimens1

Marker genes1

eDNA detections1

Countries1

Marker genes sequenced

★ the standard DNA barcode for this group — the short region actually read to tell this species apart. The rest are extra genes sequenced along the way.

COI-5P

animal barcode

08Occurrence & distribution

Record type3 records

Wild obs. + sensor1

Museum / vouchered2

Range

Area of Occupancy AOO8 km²

Wildobservation + sensor

Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.

Coordinate accuracy100% within 1 km

≤100 m 1

1 georeferenced

Open the mapobservation + sensor1

Museum / Voucheredphysical evidence

Backed by a physical specimen — a herbarium sheet, sample or voucher held in a collection. “Vouchered” means supported by material evidence, not just an observation.

Coordinate accuracy

no georeferenced coordinates · 2 records without

Open the institutions mapphysical evidence2

Wildobservation + sensor

Human sightings and records, or camera-trap / sensor detections — someone (or a device) saw or captured the species in the wild.

10Collections & institutions

Institution	Specimens
University of Alabamalocation not on record	1
University of Arizona, Insect Collectionlocation not on record	1

2 institutions · 2 of 2 vouchered records shown

09Environmental DNA1 detections

Where the DNA of Agrilus restrictus was picked up in samples of water, soil or air — nobody saw the organism, only its DNA left behind. A trace is a clue that the species was near, not a confirmed sighting.

Signal

Detections DNA found1

Studies independent surveys1

Countries1

Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections

Where its DNA was found

0 of 1 detections have coordinates

Open the map1 country0

How strong is each trace?

DNA read depthRead counts were not reported for this species — the map shows presence only, not how strong each trace was.

Modelled climatemodelled

−15°Ctemperature across detection sites+40°C

Temperature median24.0 °C 24.0–24.0

Seasonal swing summer↔winter17.4 °C

Max temp (day)30.4 °C

Min temp (night)17.9 °C

Precipitation133 mm/mo

Air humidity51.1 %

Moisture balance-39.0 mm/mo

Vapour deficit1,461 Pa

Wind speed2.20 m/s

Cloud cover15.7 %

CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 1 detection point · median with p10–p90 · reflects where sampling happened, not only the true niche

How to read this: each dot is one detection of this species' DNA in an environmental sample. The confidence meter weighs how many independent studies and places back up the signal — one detection in one study is a hint; many across several studies is solid. Records dated before 2008 (when eDNA methods began) are treated as likely mislabeled and left off the map.