Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Utility of Mitochondrial DNA Barcodes in Species Conservation

RUBINOFF, DANIEL·2006·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Molecular tools are a standard part of many conservation studies and can be informative at many different levels of analysis, although there are inherent limitations and strengths of different genes or parts of genes to inform specific questions. Animal DNA barcodes, 600‐ to 800‐base‐pair segments of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome oxidase I, have been proposed as a means to quantify global biodiversity. Although mitochondrial (mt) DNA has a long history of use at the species level, recent analyses suggest that the use of a single gene, particularly mitochondrial, is unlikely to yield data that are balanced, universally acceptable, or sufficient in taxonomic scope to recognize many species lineages. Mitochondrial and nuclear genomes have different patterns of evolution and modes of inheritance, which can result in very different assessments of biodiversity. The ramifications of choosing a particular definition of species (species concept) need to be carefully considered because current efforts have designated DNA barcodes as the universal species concept without demonstrating its superiority over preexisting concepts. The results of such a barcoding paradigm may include a failure to recognize significant portions of biodiversity or nuclear/mitochondrial mixed lineages and could spuriously focus conservation resources on populations with relatively minor mtDNA divergence. DNA barcodes are most likely to provide potentially useful information for groups that are already well studied, and such taxa do not constitute the majority of biodiversity or those in most need of research attention. DNA barcode‐length sequences are an important source of data but, when used alone or out of context, may offer only a fraction of the information needed to characterize species while taking resources from broader studies that could produce information essential to robust and informed conservation decisions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00372.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
RUBINOFF, D.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03-10
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
1026-1033
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W1920665686
Cited by
302
References
0
FWCI
19.27
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: Utility of Mitochondrial DNA Barcodes in Species Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00372.x
The paper
RUBINOFF, D. (2006). Utility of Mitochondrial DNA Barcodes in Species Conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00372.x

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.