ReviewEcology and evolution2024
Why animals construct helical burrows: Construction vs. post-construction benefits.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Why animals construct helical burrows: Construction vs. post-construction benefits.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extended phenotype of helical burrowing behavior in animals has evolved independently many times since the Cambrian explosion (~540 million years ago [MYA]). A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of helical burrowing in certain taxa, but no study has searched for a general explanation encompassing all taxa. We reviewed helical burrowing in both extant and extinct animals and from the trace fossil record and compiled 10 hypotheses for why animals construct helical burrows, including our own ideas. Of these, six are post-construction hypotheses-benefits to the creator or offspring, realized after burrow construction-and four are construction hypotheses reflecting direct benefits to the creator during construction. We examine the fit of these hypotheses to a total of 21 extant taxa and ichnotaxa representing 59-184 possible species. Only two hypotheses, antipredator and biomechanical advantage, cannot be rejected for any species (possible in 100% of taxa), but six of the hypotheses cannot be rejected for most species (possible in 86%-100% of taxa): microclimate buffer, reduced falling sediment (soil), anticrowding, and vertical patch. Four of these six are construction hypotheses, raising the possibility that helical burrowing may have evolved without providing post-construction benefits. Our analysis shows that increased drainage, deposit feeding, microbial farming, and offspring escape cannot explain helical burrowing behavior in the majority of taxa (5%-48%). Overall, the evidence does not support a general explanation for the evolution of helical burrowing in animals. The function and evolution of the helix as an extended phenotype seems to provide different advantages for different taxa in different environments under different physicochemical controls (some traces/tracemakers are discussed in more detail due to their association with body fossils and well-constrained physicochemical parameters). Although direct tests of many of the hypotheses would be difficult, we nevertheless offer ways to test some of the hypotheses for selected taxa.
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.