ArticleScientific reports2023
Necrophagy by insects in Oculudentavis and other lizard body fossils preserved in Cretaceous amber.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Syninclusions reveal "ant mosaic" in the Eocene amber forest.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Agathis vs. Hymenaea-trapping biases to interpret arthropod assemblages in ambers.BMC biology · 2025Article
- Diverse Mesozoic thrips carrying pollen during the gymnosperm-to-angiosperm plant-host ecological shift.iScience · 2025Article
- Three taphonomic stories of three new fossil species of Darwin wasps (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Group mating in Cretaceous water striders.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Extinct and extant termites reveal the fidelity of behavior fossilization in amber.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When a vertebrate carcass begins its decay in terrestrial environments, a succession of different necrophagous arthropod species, mainly insects, are attracted. Trophic aspects of the Mesozoic environments are of great comparative interest, to understand similarities and differences with extant counterparts. Here, we comprehensively study several exceptional Cretaceous amber pieces, in order to determine the early necrophagy by insects (flies in our case) on lizard specimens, ca. 99 Ma old. To obtain well-supported palaeoecological data from our amber assemblages, special attention has been paid in the analysis of the taphonomy, succession (stratigraphy), and content of the different amber layers, originally resin flows. In this respect, we revisited the concept of syninclusion, establishing two categories to make the palaeoecological inferences more accurate: eusyninclusions and parasyninclusions. We observe that resin acted as a "necrophagous trap". The lack of dipteran larvae and the presence of phorid flies indicates decay was in an early stage when the process was recorded. Similar patterns to those in our Cretaceous cases have been observed in Miocene ambers and actualistic experiments using sticky traps, which also act as "necrophagous traps"; for example, we observed that flies were indicative of the early necrophagous stage, but also ants. In contrast, the absence of ants in our Late Cretaceous cases confirms the rareness of ants during the Cretaceous and suggests that early ants lacked this trophic strategy, possibly related to their sociability and recruitment foraging strategies, which developed later in the dimensions we know them today. This situation potentially made necrophagy by insects less efficient in the Mesozoic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.