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 Senecio leucanthemifolius has left across the world's sequence archives.
At a glance
DNA specimens2
Marker genes2
eDNA detections2
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★ITS2
plant barcodefungal barcode
08Occurrence & distribution
Record type2 536 records
Wild obs. + sensor2 293
Museum / vouchered240
Other3
Origin
Introduced7
Range
Area of Occupancy AOO3 988 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 accuracy69% within 1 km
≤100 m 1 281≤1 km 195≤10 km 627>10 km 27
2 130 georeferenced · 163 without coordinates
Open the mapobservation + sensor2 293
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 accuracy54% within 1 km
≤100 m 14≤1 km 36≤10 km 38>10 km 5
93 georeferenced · 147 without coordinates
Open the institutions mapphysical evidence240
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 institutions23 of 41 geolocated
Institutions and collections holding physical, vouchered specimens of this species — click a row to fly to it on the map.
Institution
Specimens
LDlocation not on record
50
UIBlocation not on record
42
MAlocation not on record
27
BClocation not on record
23
Wlocation not on record
8
Institut und Museum fuer Geologie und Palaeontologielocation not on record
8
Sevilla, ES
7
Alicante, ES
6
València, ES
6
Barcelona, ES
6
Berlin, DE
5
CJBGlocation not on record
3
Paris, FR
3
Bronx, US
2
Phyletisches Museum Jenalocation not on record
2
Granada, ES
2
Entomological Society of Latvialocation not on record
2
GJOlocation not on record
2
Stockholm, SE
2
Görlitz, DE
1
Wuzhou, CN
1
Provincia di Livornolocation not on record
1
Kew, GB
1
Moscow State Universitylocation not on record
1
GZUlocation not on record
1
Bourges, FR
1
Badajoz, ES
1
Christchurch, NZ
1
ISAlocation not on record
1
San Diego, US
1
Saint Louis, US
1
MeiseBGlocation not on record
1
Vancouver, CA
1
Frankfurt am Main
1
Oskarshamn, SE
1
Museo Achille Folettolocation not on record
1
Jaén, ES
1
Karlsruhe, DE
1
Salamanca, ES
1
BRNUlocation not on record
1
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznańlocation not on record
1
41 institutions · 228 of 240 vouchered records shown · 10 without an institution code
09Environmental DNA2 detections
Where the DNA of Senecio leucanthemifolius 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 found2
Studies independent surveys1
Countries1
Signal confidence: weakweighed across independent studies, places & mapped detections
Where its DNA was found
0 of 2 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 median11.3 °C 11.3–11.3
Seasonal swing summer↔winter15.8 °C
Max temp (day)15.1 °C
Min temp (night)7.30 °C
Precipitation76.5 mm/mo
Air humidity62.5 %
Moisture balance-8.00 mm/mo
Vapour deficit552 Pa
Wind speed4.60 m/s
Cloud cover41.8 %
CHELSA 1981–2010, ~9 km grid, at location & month of 2 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.
