ArticlePeerJ2019
Filter feeding in Late Jurassic pterosaurs supported by coprolite contents.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- New large pterosaur tracks from Korea and their implications on terrestrial behavior.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- WasPeerJ · 2025Article
- A new pterosaur from the early stage of the Jehol biota in China, with a study on the relative thickness of bone walls.Heliyon · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- A new istiodactylid pterosaur,PeerJ · 2022Article
- Fossilized leftover falls as sources of palaeoecological data: a 'pabulite' comprising a crustacean, a belemnite and a vertebrate from the Early Jurassic Posidonia Shale.Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diets of pterosaurs have mainly been inferred from indirect evidence such as comparative anatomy, associations of co-occurring fossils, and functional morphology. Gut contents are rare, and until now there is only a single coprolite (fossil dropping), with unidentified inclusions, known. Here we describe three coprolites collected from a palaeosurface with numerous pterosaur tracks found in early Kimmeridgian (Hypselocyclum Zone) intertidal deposits of the Wierzbica Quarry, Poland. The specimens' morphology and association to the tracks suggest a pterosaur producer. Synchrotron scans reveal numerous small inclusions, with foraminifera making up the majority of the identifiable ones. Other small remains include shells/carapaces (of bivalves, ostracods, and other crustaceans/arthropods) and bristles (some possibly of polychaete worms). The high density of the small shelly inclusions suggest that they were not accidently ingested, but constituted an important food source for the pterosaur(s), perhaps together with unpreserved soft-bodied animals. The combined evidence from the tracks and coprolites suggest a filter-feeding ctenochasmatid as the most likely tracemaker. If true, this significantly expands the bromalite record for this pterosaur group, which was previously only known from gastroliths. Moreover, this study also provides the first direct evidence of filter feeding in Jurassic pterosaurs and shows that they had a similar diet to the recent Chilean flamingo (
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.