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 Lycopersicum esculentum has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens14
Marker genes2
eDNA detections6
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.
★matK★rbcLa
plant barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type148 records
Wild obs. + sensor19
Museum / vouchered128
Other1
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO460 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 10≤1 km 2
12 georeferenced · 7 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor19
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 accuracy16% within 1 km
≤100 m 3≤1 km 2≤10 km 26
31 georeferenced · 97 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence128
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 33 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
Beijing, CN
17
ROM007location not on record
11
Guangzhou, CN
10
Alexandria Universitylocation not on record
7
Guilin, CN
5
Taipei, TW
3
Entomological Society of Latvialocation not on record
3
Nanjing, CN
3
TAFORI-LSRClocation not on record
3
Saint Louis, US
3
UnBlocation not on record
2
CASlocation not on record
2
Durango, MX
2
Herbier National du Gabonlocation not on record
2
UFERSAlocation not on record
2
Nnamdi Azikiwe University Herbarium (NAUH)location not on record
1
“Manash Kozybayev North Kazakhstan University" NPLClocation not on record
1
Xiamen, CN
1
Berlin, DE
1
University of Southern Mississippilocation not on record
1
BMlocation not on record
1
UNESP, Campus São José Rio Prêtolocation not on record
1
Museo de Historia Natural de El Salvadorlocation not on record
1
Tartu, EE
1
Chiba, JP
1
Valparaiso, CL
1
Jaén, ES
1
Museo della Bonifica di San Donà di Piavelocation not on record
1
Universidad de La Salle (La Salle)location not on record
1
MAlocation not on record
1
Antiguo Cuscatlán, SV
1
Parthenon Tama History Museumlocation not on record
1
Nagasaki University - Fisherieslocation not on record
1
33 institutions · 93 of 128 vouchered records shown · 35 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA6 detections
Where the DNA of Lycopersicum esculentum 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 found6
Studies independent surveys1
Countries1
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 6 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 median14.8 °C 14.8–14.8
Seasonal swing summer↔winter14.2 °C
Max temp (day)19.5 °C
Min temp (night)9.60 °C
Precipitation4.80 mm/mo
Air humidity53.8 %
Moisture balance-67.6 mm/mo
Vapour deficit775 Pa
Wind speed3.30 m/s
Cloud cover34.9 %
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 6 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.
