Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29877021›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2018

Pterosaur dietary hypotheses: a review of ideas and approaches.

Jordan Bestwick, David M Unwin, Richard J Butler, Donald M Henderson, Mark A Purnell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Swarming caddisflies in the mid-cretaceous.National science review · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Two emetolite-pterosaur associations from the Late Jurassic of China: showing the first evidence for antiperistalsis in pterosaurs.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
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

5 authors.

Jordan BestwickSchool of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-1098-6286
David M UnwinSchool of Museum Studies, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RF, U.K.
Richard J ButlerSchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, U.K.
Donald M HendersonRoyal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, P.O. Box 7500, Drumheller, Alberta, T0J 0Y0, Canada.
Mark A PurnellSchool of Geography, Geology and the Environment, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-1777-9220

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pterosaurs are an extinct group of Mesozoic flying reptiles, whose fossil record extends from approximately 210 to 66 million years ago. They were integral components of continental and marginal marine ecosystems, yet their diets remain poorly constrained. Numerous dietary hypotheses have been proposed for different pterosaur groups, including insectivory, piscivory, carnivory, durophagy, herbivory/frugivory, filter-feeding and generalism. These hypotheses, and subsequent interpretations of pterosaur diet, are supported by qualitative (content fossils, associations, ichnology, comparative anatomy) and/or quantitative (functional morphology, stable isotope analysis) evidence. Pterosaur dietary interpretations are scattered throughout the literature with little attention paid to the supporting evidence. Reaching a robustly supported consensus on pterosaur diets is important for understanding their dietary evolution, and their roles in Mesozoic ecosystems. A comprehensive examination of the pterosaur literature identified 314 dietary interpretations (dietary statement plus supporting evidence) from 126 published studies. Multiple alternative diets have been hypothesised for most principal taxonomic pterosaur groups. Some groups exhibit a high degree of consensus, supported by multiple lines of evidence, while others exhibit less consensus. Qualitative evidence supports 87.3% of dietary interpretations, with comparative anatomy most common (62.1% of total). More speciose groups of pterosaur tend to have a greater range of hypothesised diets. Consideration of dietary interpretations within alternative phylogenetic contexts reveals high levels of consensus between equivalent monofenestratan groups, and lower levels of consensus between equivalent non-monofenestratan groups. Evaluating the possible non-biological controls on apparent patterns of dietary diversity reveals that numbers of dietary interpretations through time exhibit no correlation with patterns of publication (number of peer-reviewed publications through time). 73.8% of dietary interpretations were published in the 21st century. Overall, consensus interpretations of pterosaur diets are better accounted for by non-biological signals, such as the impact of the respective quality of the fossil record of different pterosaur groups on research levels. That many interpretations are based on qualitative, often untestable lines of evidence adds significant noise to the data. More experiment-led pterosaur dietary research, with greater consideration of pterosaurs as organisms with independent evolutionary histories, will lead to more robust conclusions drawn from repeatable results. This will allow greater understanding of pterosaur dietary diversity, disparity and evolution and facilitate reconstructions of Mesozoic ecosystems.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorFossilsAnimalsBiological EvolutionDietReptilescomparative anatomyconsensusdietecosystemevidenceinterpretationspterosaurqualitativequantitative

Identifiers

PMID29877021
PMCPMC6849529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.