Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35127139›Full record

ArticleEvolution letters2022

Allometric conservatism in the evolution of bird beaks.

Louie M K Rombaut, Elliot J R Capp, Christopher R Cooney, Emma C Hughes, Zoë K Varley, Gavin H Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Louie M K RombautDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN United Kingdom.
Elliot J R CappDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN United Kingdom.
Christopher R CooneyDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN United Kingdom.
Emma C HughesDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN United Kingdom.
Zoë K VarleyDepartment of Life Sciences Natural History Museum London London SW7 5BD United Kingdom.
Gavin H ThomasDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1982-6051

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolution can involve periods of rapid divergent adaptation and expansion in the range of diversity, but evolution can also be relatively conservative over certain timescales due to functional, genetic-developmental, and ecological constraints. One way in which evolution may be conservative is in terms of allometry, the scaling relationship between the traits of organisms and body size. Here, we investigate patterns of allometric conservatism in the evolution of bird beaks with beak size and body size data for a representative sample of over 5000 extant bird species within a phylogenetic framework. We identify clades in which the allometric relationship between beak size and body size has remained relatively conserved across species over millions to tens of millions of years. We find that allometric conservatism is nonetheless punctuated by occasional shifts in the slopes and intercepts of allometric relationships. A steady accumulation of such shifts through time has given rise to the tremendous diversity of beak size relative to body size across birds today. Our findings are consistent with the Simpsonian vision of macroevolution, with evolutionary conservatism being the rule but with occasional shifts to new adaptive zones.

Indexed as

Allometrybird beaksconstraintsevolutionary conservatism

Identifiers

PMID35127139
PMCPMC8802239

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.