Using DNA to assess errors in tropical tree identifications: How often are ecologists wrong and when does it matter?

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Floristic Study of the White-Sand Forests of Peru1 (2010, background): “(Fabaceae), Dexter et al. (2010) found several morphologically similar but molecularly divergent taxa that had previously been lumped together, after which further study yielded other morphological but previously overlooked characters, resulting in the discovery of new cryptic Inga species.”
Plant DNA barcodes: Applications today and in the future (2017, background): “Early studies (Gonzalez et al., 2009; Kress et al., 2009; Dexter et al., 2010) mostly focused on trees in tropical forest monitoring plots and demonstrated the difficulties, especially the low identification rates (e.g., 70%), of using DNA barcodes.”
Conservation and the botanist effect (2011, unknown): “…morphology based identifications for the tropical tree genus Inga (Leguminosae) made during an ecological survey where many individuals were sterile, Dexter et al. (2010) found error rates between 6.8% and 7.6% of all individuals, and these errors had a measurable impact on ecological analyses.”