The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nuclear DNA Amounts in Angiosperms and their Modern Uses—807 New Estimates
Abstract
The DNA amount in the unreplicated haploid nucleus of an organism is known as its C-value. C-values differ about 1000-fold among angiosperms and are characteristic of taxa. The data are used in many biological fields, so they should be easily available. Values for 2802 angiosperm species (1%) were estimated during 1950–1997, and five collected lists of C-values were published for reference purposes during 1976–1997. Numbers of new angiosperm C-values published recently remained high, necessitating a further supplementary list. This paper lists DNA C-values for 807 angiosperm species from 70 original sources, including 520 (75.2%) from sources published after 1996, and 691 for species not included in any of the previous five lists. There is a continuing need to estimate accurate DNA C-values for plant taxa, as shown in a workshop on this biodiversity topic sponsored by Annals of Botany and held at Kew in 1997. Its key aim was to identify major gaps in our knowledge of plant DNA amounts and to recommend targets and priorities for new work to fill them. A target of estimating first C-values for the next 1% of angiosperm species in 5 years was set. The proportion of such C-values in the present work (85.6%) is very high; and the number being published (approx. 220 per annum) has never been exceeded. In 1997, C-values were still unknown for most (68%) families, so a target of complete coverage was set. This paper includes first C-values for 12 families, but as less than 2% of such values listed here targeted new families, the need to improve familial representation remains. Copyright 2000 Annals of Botany Company
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
May, R. M., Lawton, J. H., & Stork, N. E. (1995) · Extinction Rates · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198548294.003.0001 · Cited by 209
Cited by
Beans (Phaseolus spp.) – model food legumes
Broughton, W. J., Hernández, G., Blair, M., Beebe, S., Gepts, P., & Vanderleyden, J. (2003) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1024146710611 · Cited by 1,511
Genome downsizing in polyploid plants: GENOME DOWNSIZING IN POLYPLOIDS
LEITCH, I. J., & BENNETT, M. D. (2004) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00349.x · Cited by 686
Self-citationLu, F., Lipka, A. E., Glaubitz, J., Elshire, R., Cherney, J. H., Casler, M. D., Buckler, E. S., & Costich, D. E. (2013) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003215 · Cited by 659
The Large Genome Constraint Hypothesis: Evolution, Ecology and Phenotype
KNIGHT, C. A. (2005) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mci011 · Cited by 538
Brachypodium distachyon. A New Model System for Functional Genomics in Grasses
Draper, J. (2001) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.127.4.1539 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, M.
- Venue
- Annals of Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 859-909
- ISSN
- 0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074370819
- Cited by
- 413
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nuclear DNA Amounts in Angiosperms and their Modern Uses—807 New Estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/anbo.2000.1253
- The paper
- Bennett, M. (2000). Nuclear DNA Amounts in Angiosperms and their Modern Uses—807 New Estimates. Annals of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1253
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.