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 Armillaria lutea has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens1
Marker genes1
eDNA detections3
Countries3
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.
★ITS
fungal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type5 480 records
Wild obs. + sensor5 250
Museum / vouchered230
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO11 588 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 accuracy88% within 1 km
≤100 m 3 228≤1 km 908≤10 km 552>10 km 4
4 692 georeferenced · 558 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor5 250
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 accuracy93% within 1 km
≤100 m 65≤1 km 60≤10 km 5>10 km 4
134 georeferenced · 96 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence230
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
Holding institutions14 of 29 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Helsinki, FI
16
Joensuu, FI
16
Görlitz, DE
15
WU-MYClocation not on record
14
SLU Artdatabankenlocation not on record
12
San Sebastián, ES
11
JA-CAGPDS-CAMlocation not on record
7
Olocation not on record
6
Philadelphia, US
6
Uppsala, SE
5
TROMlocation not on record
5
Tartu, EE
4
Trondheim, NO
3
Salzburg, AT
3
Copenhagen, DK
2
LDlocation not on record
2
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznańlocation not on record
2
Göteborg, SE
2
Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung: Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseumlocation not on record
2
V. N. Karazin National Universitylocation not on record
2
Warsaw, PL
2
Universidade de Lisboa, Museu Bocagelocation not on record
1
Catholic University of Pekinglocation not on record
1
nsnflocation not on record
1
Natural History Museum Rotterdamlocation not on record
1
University of Oslo, Natural History Museumlocation not on record
1
BRNUlocation not on record
1
Gijón, ES
1
Stockholm, SE
1
29 institutions · 145 of 230 vouchered records shown · 85 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA3 detections
Where the DNA of Armillaria lutea 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 found3
Studies independent surveys2
Countries3
Signal confidence: moderateweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 3 detections have coordinates
Open the map3 countries0
På grov, styva ask i høstingsskog
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 median7.50 °C 1.90–20.2
Seasonal swing summer↔winter20.9 °C
Max temp (day)9.90 °C 3.70–22.3
Min temp (night)2.80 °C -0.6–17.3
Precipitation53.0 mm/mo 33.6–370
Air humidity68.2 % 60.6–69.4
Moisture balance389 mm/mo
Vapour deficit331 Pa 221–1,013
Wind speed4.80 m/s
Cloud cover48.3 % 35.1–63.0
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 3 detection points · 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.
