ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Olfactory performance explains duality of antennal architectural designs in Lepidoptera.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. 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.
- Olfactory performance explains duality of antennal architectural designs in Lepidoptera.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Male attraction by females through sex pheromones is widespread among Lepidoptera, and antennae are key olfactory organs during male orientation. Broadly speaking, two designs of antennae coexist in Lepidoptera: complex (pectinate) or stick-like (filiform) ones. Pectinate antennae have attracted attention because of their multiscale geometry, assumed to outperform filiform. Yet, the filiform design is by far more common. We compare the olfactory performance of the two designs using modelling, particle image velocimetry on three-dimensional-printed scaled-up models and computational simulations. In terms of absolute odour capture, pectinate antennae perform better at nearly all flying speeds. However, when considering drag, filiform designs are more energy efficient than pectinate ones at low-flight speeds, while the reverse holds at high speeds. This is owing to the differential scaling of drag and molecule capture with flight speed. According to our results, small and slow moths would bear filiform antennae whereas big and fast moths would have pectinate ones, which is the general trend observed in nature. We discuss exceptions to this general pattern and how species could evolve from one design to the other by investigating the influence of the antennal structural elements.
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.