Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35938671›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2022

Comparative morphology and soft tissue histology of the remote-touch bill-tip organ in three ibis species of differing foraging ecology.

Carla J du Toit, Anusuya Chinsamy, Susan J Cunningham

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2022. 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
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carla J du ToitFitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence, Private Bag X3, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-0074-8698
Anusuya ChinsamyDSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9786-5080
Susan J CunninghamFitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence, Private Bag X3, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9934-2585
University of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence at the FitzPatrick Institute of African OrnithologyDSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in PalaeosciencesNational Research Foundation 117716
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ibises (order: Pelecaniformes, family: Threskiornithidae) are probe-foraging birds that use 'remote-touch' to locate prey items hidden in opaque substrates. This sensory capability allows them to locate their prey using high-frequency vibrations in the substrate in the absence of other sensory cues. Remote-touch is facilitated by a specialised bill-tip organ, comprising high densities of mechanoreceptors (Herbst corpuscles) embedded in numerous foramina in the beak bones. Each foramen and its associated Herbst corpuscles make up a sensory unit, called a 'sensory pit'. These sensory pits are densely clustered in the distal portion of the beak. Previous research has indicated that interspecific differences in the extent of sensory pitting in the beak bones correlate with aquatic habitat use of ibises, and have been suggested to reflect different levels of remote-touch sensitivity. Our study investigates the interspecific differences in the bone and soft tissue histology of the bill-tip organs of three species of southern African ibises from different habitats (mainly terrestrial to mainly aquatic). We analysed the external pitting pattern on the bones, as well as internal structure of the beak using micro-CT scans and soft tissue histological sections of each species' bill-tip organs. The beaks of all three species contain remote-touch bill-tip organs and are described here in detail. Clear interspecific differences are evident between the species' bill-tip organs, both in terms of bone morphology and soft tissue histology. Glossy Ibises, which forage exclusively in wetter substrates, have a greater extent of pitting but lower numbers of Herbst corpuscles in each pit, while species foraging in drier substrates (Hadeda and Sacred Ibises) have more robust beaks, fewer pits and higher densities of Herbst corpuscles. Our data, together with previously published histological descriptions of the bill-tip organs of other remote-touch foraging bird species, indicate that species foraging in drier habitats have more sensitive bill-tip organs (based on their anatomy). The vibrations produced by prey (e.g., burrowing invertebrates) travel poorly in dry substrates compared with wetter ones (i.e., dry soil vs. mud or water), and thus we hypothesise that a more sensitive bill-tip organ may be required to successfully locate prey in dry substrates. Furthermore, our results indicate that the differences in bill-tip organ anatomy between the species reflect complex trade-offs between morphological constraints of beak shape and remote-touch sensitivity requirements, both of which are likely related to each species' foraging behaviour and substrate usage. Our study suggests that structures in the bone of the bill-tip organ could provide valuable osteological correlates for the associated soft tissues, and consequently may provide information on the sensory ecology and habitat usage of the birds in the absence of soft tissues.

Indexed as

TouchAfrica, SouthernAnimalsBeakBirdsMechanoreceptorsSoilVibrationWaterSoilWaterbill-tip organecomorphologyHerbst corpuscleslinks between soft tissue and bone morphologyremote-touchsensory ecologytactile foragingThreskiornithidae

Identifiers

PMID35938671
PMCPMC9482703
OpenAlexW4290653700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.