Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36515120›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Diving into a dead-end: asymmetric evolution of diving drives diversity and disparity shifts in waterbirds.

Joshua Tyler, Jane L Younger

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua TylerMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2917-3621
Jane L YoungerMilner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5974-7350
University of Bath · GBUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diving is a relatively uncommon and highly specialized foraging strategy in birds, mostly observed within the Aequorlitornithes (waterbirds) by groups such as penguins, cormorants and alcids. Three key diving techniques are employed within waterbirds: wing-propelled pursuit diving (e.g. penguins), foot-propelled pursuit diving (e.g. cormorants) and plunge diving (e.g. gannets). How many times diving evolved within waterbirds, whether plunge diving is an intermediate state between aerial foraging and submarine diving, and whether the transition to a diving niche is reversible are not known. Here, we elucidate the evolutionary history of diving in waterbirds. We show that diving has been acquired independently at least 14 times within waterbirds, and this acquisition is apparently irreversible, in a striking example of asymmetric evolution. All three modes of diving have evolved independently, with no evidence for plunge diving as an intermediate evolutionary state. Net diversification rates differ significantly between diving versus non-diving lineages, with some diving clades apparently prone to extinction. We find that body mass is evolving under multiple macroevolutionary regimes, with unique optima for each diving type with varying degrees of constraint. Our findings highlight the vulnerability of highly specialized lineages during the ongoing sixth mass extinction.

Indexed as

SpheniscidaeWings, AnimalAnimalsAequorlitornithesconvergencemacroevolutionniche adaptationratchets

Identifiers

PMID36515120
PMCPMC9748772
OpenAlexW4311391347

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.