Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35855602›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Beetle bioluminescence outshines extant aerial predators.

Gareth S Powell, Natalie A Saxton, Yelena M Pacheco, Kathrin F Stanger-Hall, Gavin J Martin, Dominik Kusy, Luiz Felipe Lima Da Silveira, Ladislav Bocak, Marc A Branham, Seth M Bybee

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Glow in the D-ARK: a new bioluminescent species ofRoyal Society open science · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. EnigmaticiScience · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beetle bioluminescence outshines extant aerial predators.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Gareth S PowellDepartment of Biology and Monte L. Bean Museum, Brigham Young University, 4102 LSB, Provo, UT 84602, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0847-2718
Natalie A SaxtonResearch and Collections Division, The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 1 Wade Oval Drive, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Yelena M PachecoPlant Biology Department, University of Georgia, 4510 Miller Plant Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Kathrin F Stanger-HallPlant Biology Department, University of Georgia, 4510 Miller Plant Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6941-4178
Gavin J MartinSchool of Math and Sciences, Laramie County Community College, 1400 E. College Dr., Cheyenne, WY 82007, USA.
Dominik KusyLaboratory of Biodiversity and Molecular Evolution, Czech Advanced Technology Research Institute (CRH), Palacky University, Slechtitelu 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.
Luiz Felipe Lima Da SilveiraBiology Department, Western Carolina University, 206 Stillwell Building, 1 University Dr., Cullowhee, NC 2723, USA.
Ladislav BocakLaboratory of Biodiversity and Molecular Evolution, Czech Advanced Technology Research Institute (CRH), Palacky University, Slechtitelu 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.
Marc A BranhamDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110620, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Seth M BybeeDepartment of Biology and Monte L. Bean Museum, Brigham Young University, 4102 LSB, Provo, UT 84602, USA.
Brigham Young University · USRegional Centre of Advanced Technologies and Materials · CZUniversity of Georgia · USCleveland Museum of Natural History · USLaramie County Community College · USUniversity of Florida · USWestern Carolina University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We understand very little about the timing and origins of bioluminescence, particularly as a predator avoidance strategy. Understanding the timing of its origins, however, can help elucidate the evolution of this ecologically important signal. Using fireflies, a prevalent bioluminescent group where bioluminescence primarily functions as aposematic and sexual signals, we explore the origins of this signal in the context of their potential predators. Divergence time estimations were performed using genomic-scale datasets providing a robust estimate for the origin of firefly bioluminescence as both a terrestrial and as an aerial signal. Our results recover the origin of terrestrial beetle bioluminescence at 141.17 (122.63-161.17) Ma and firefly aerial bioluminescence at 133.18 (117.86-152.47) Ma using a large dataset focused on Lampyridae; and terrestrial bioluminescence at 148.03 (130.12-166.80) Ma, with the age of aerial bioluminescence at 104.97 (99.00-120.90) Ma using a complementary Elateroidea dataset. These ages pre-date the origins of all known extant aerial predators (i.e. bats and birds) and support much older terrestrial predators (assassin bugs, frogs, ground beetles, lizards, snakes, hunting spiders and harvestmen) as the drivers of terrestrial bioluminescence in beetles. These ages also support the hypothesis that sexual signalling was probably the original function of this signal in aerial fireflies.

Indexed as

ChiropteraColeopteraAnimalsFirefliesGenomicsPhylogenyaposematismdivergence time estimationLampyridaephylogenypredation

Identifiers

PMID35855602
PMCPMC9297012
OpenAlexW4285987752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.