ArticleScientific reports2017
Repeated evolution of camouflage in speciose desert rodents.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allometry of Ingestion Among Habitat Mimicking Praying Mantises.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Tissue-specific Thermal Acclimation in Chinese Bulbuls: Differential Physiological Response Rates to Temperature Increases.Zoological studies · 2025Article
- Adaptive and non-adaptive convergent evolution in feather reflectance of California Channel Islands songbirds.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Diversity, distribution and conservation of land mammals in Mauritania, North-West Africa.PloS one · 2022Article
- Generalist camouflage can be more successful than microhabitat specialisation in natural environments.BMC ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Morphometric Study ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Repeated horizontal gene transfers triggered parallel evolution of magnetotaxis in two evolutionary divergent lineages of magnetotactic bacteria.The ISME journal · 2020Article
- Evolutionary history of two cryptic species of northern African jerboas.BMC evolutionary biology · 2020Article
- Background matching and disruptive coloration as habitat-specific strategies for camouflage.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- BRC4Env, a network of Biological Resource Centres for research in environmental and agricultural sciences.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are two main factors explaining variation among species and the evolution of characters along phylogeny: adaptive change, including phenotypic and genetic responses to selective pressures, and phylogenetic inertia, or the resemblance between species due to shared phylogenetic history. Phenotype-habitat colour match, a classic Darwinian example of the evolution of camouflage (crypsis), offers the opportunity to test the importance of historical versus ecological mechanisms in shaping phenotypes among phylogenetically closely related taxa. To assess it, we investigated fur (phenotypic data) and habitat (remote sensing data) colourations, along with phylogenetic information, in the species-rich Gerbillus genus. Overall, we found a strong phenotype-habitat match, once the phylogenetic signal is taken into account. We found that camouflage has been acquired and lost repeatedly in the course of the evolutionary history of Gerbillus. Our results suggest that fur colouration and its covariation with habitat is a relatively labile character in mammals, potentially responding quickly to selection. Relatively unconstrained and substantial genetic basis, as well as structural and functional independence from other fitness traits of mammalian colouration might be responsible for that observation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.