Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25520358›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2015

How much does nasal cavity morphology matter? Patterns and rates of olfactory airflow in phyllostomid bats.

Thomas P Eiting, J Blair Perot, Elizabeth R Dumont

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Computational Analysis of Olfactory Airspace in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2021
    Article
  8. Olfactory tracking strategies in a neotropical fruit bat.The Journal of experimental biology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas P EitingGraduate Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA tom.eiting@utah.edu.
J Blair PerotDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
Elizabeth R DumontGraduate Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The morphology of the nasal cavity in mammals with a good sense of smell includes features that are thought to improve olfactory airflow, such as a dorsal conduit that delivers odours quickly to the olfactory mucosa, an enlarged olfactory recess at the back of the airway, and a clear separation of the olfactory and respiratory regions of the nose. The link between these features and having a good sense of smell has been established by functional examinations of a handful of distantly related mammalian species. In this paper, we provide the first detailed examination of olfactory airflow in a group of closely related species that nevertheless vary in their sense of smell. We study six species of phyllostomid bats that have different airway morphologies and foraging ecologies, which have been linked to differences in olfactory ability or reliance. We hypothesize that differences in morphology correlate with differences in the patterns and rates of airflow, which in turn are consistent with dietary differences. To compare species, we make qualitative and quantitative comparisons of the patterns and rates of airflow through the olfactory region during both inhalation and exhalation across the six species. Contrary to our expectations, we find no clear differences among species in either the patterns of airflow through the airway or in rates of flow through the olfactory region. By and large, olfactory airflow seems to be conserved across species, suggesting that morphological differences appear to be driven by other mechanical demands on the snout, such as breathing and feeding. Olfactory ability may depend on other aspects of the system, such as the neurobiological processing of odours that work within the existing morphology imposed by other functional demands on the nasal cavity.

Indexed as

AnimalsChiropteraHydrodynamicsModels, AnatomicNasal CavitySmellSpecies Specificitycomputational fluid dynamicsethmoturbinateolfactionphyllostomid bats

Identifiers

PMID25520358
PMCPMC4298208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.