Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34214090›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Less need for differentiation? Intestinal length of reptiles as compared to mammals.

Monika I Hoppe, Carlo Meloro, Mark S Edwards, Daryl Codron, Marcus Clauss, María J Duque-Correa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Feeding biomechanics in vertebrates and beyond.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Amphibian Intestine Allometry.Journal of morphology · 2026
    Article
  4. A quantitative risk assessment framework for mortality due to macroplastic ingestion in seabirds, marine mammals, and sea turtles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Diet and habitat as determinants of intestine length in fishes.Reviews in fish biology and fisheries · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Monika I HoppeClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Carlo MeloroResearch Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0175-1706
Mark S EdwardsCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1329-0911
Daryl CodronDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Marcus ClaussClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3841-6207
María J Duque-CorreaClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8431-2228
University of Zurich · CHCalifornia Polytechnic State University · USLiverpool John Moores University · GBUniversity of the Free State · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although relationships between intestinal morphology between trophic groups in reptiles are widely assumed and represent a cornerstone of ecomorphological narratives, few comparative approaches actually tested this hypothesis on a larger scale. We collected data on lengths of intestinal sections of 205 reptile species for which either body mass (BM), snout-vent-length (SVL) or carapax length (CL) was recorded, transforming SVL or CL into BM if the latter was not given, and analyzed scaling patterns with BM and SVL, accounting for phylogeny, comparing three trophic guilds (faunivores, omnivores, herbivores), and comparing with a mammal dataset. Length-BM relationships in reptiles were stronger for the small than the large intestine, suggesting that for the latter, additional factors might be relevant. Adding trophic level did not consistently improve model fit; only when controlling for phylogeny, models indicated a longer large intestine in herbivores, due to a corresponding pattern in lizards. Trophic level effects were highly susceptible to sample sizes, and not considered strong. Models that linked BM to intestine length had better support than models using SVL, due to the deviating body shape of snakes. At comparable BM, reptiles had shorter intestines than mammals. While the latter finding corresponds to findings of lower tissue masses for the digestive tract and other organs in reptiles as well as our understanding of differences in energetic requirements between the classes, they raise the hitherto unanswered question what it is that reptiles of similar BM have more than mammals. A lesser effect of trophic level on intestine lengths in reptiles compared to mammals may stem from lesser selective pressures on differentiation between trophic guilds, related to the generally lower food intake and different movement patterns of reptiles, which may not similarly escalate evolutionary arms races tuned to optimal agility as between mammalian predators and prey.

Indexed as

Anatomy, ComparativeAnimalsBody SizeCarnivoryEnergy IntakeHerbivoryIntestine, LargeIntestinesIntestine, SmallMammalsOrgan SizeReptiles

Identifiers

PMID34214090
PMCPMC8253402
OpenAlexW3174020188

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.