MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990567692 · doi:10.1242/jeb.036558

ALLIGATORS, LIKE BIRDS, BREATHE ONE WAY ONLY

2010· article· en· W1990567692 on OpenAlexaff
Erika J. Eliason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirflowAlligatorExhalationThermistorVentilation (architecture)BreathingAnatomyBreathing gasChemistryBiologyMeteorologyPhysicsEcologyEngineeringThermodynamicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that bird lungs move air in a one-way loop through their gas-exchanging tubes during inhalation and exhalation. In contrast, mammals and presumably all other vertebrates breathe tidally, bringing air into the dead-end gas-exchange structures and back out through the same pathway. One-way airflow is a highly efficient method of breathing, allowing more oxygen to be extracted per breath compared with tidal breathing. Unidirectional airflow is thought to be unique to birds, which have evolved to meet the high oxygen demands of flight. As it turns out, alligators also have a one-way path of breathing, similar to birds.Conventional wisdom suggests that one-way air flow can only occur with the help of air sacs, bellow-like structures that are found only in birds. C. G. Farmer and Kent Sanders, from the University of Utah, USA, noticed that key features of the alligator lung looked remarkably similar to the bird lung, though alligators lack air sacs. To test the hypothesis that airflow in alligators is unidirectional, the authors performed three separate experiments. First, they artificially ventilated excised lungs from four American alligators and monitored airflow using flowmeters, termed thermistors. Next, they surgically implanted thermistors on six anaesthetized alligators and monitored airflow during normal breathing. Finally, they filled an excised alligator lung with saline fluid containing fluorescent beads and visualized the water flow during artificial ventilation.All three experiments showed the same remarkable result, that flow occurs in one direction through the lungs of alligators. Notably, air flowed unidirectionally even in excised lungs, suggesting that one-way airflow in alligators is caused by the structural arrangement of the gas exchanging tubes themselves. These results demonstrate that unidirectional airflow can occur in the absence of air sacs, and alternative forms of breathing, such as the hepatic piston method used by alligators, do not preclude unidirectional airflow.This extraordinary finding has important implications for how scientists think about the evolution of breathing. Farmer and Sanders suggest that unidirectional airflow evolved far earlier than previously thought. They propose that unidirectional airflow was present in basal archosaurs, the common ancestor of crocodilians, birds and dinosaurs. Mammal-like reptiles, termed synapsids, were the dominant land animals during the Permian. However, following the Permian–Triassic extinction, archosaurs emerged as the champions and dominated earth until the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, after which synapsids regained supremacy. Farmer and Sanders suggest that unidirectional airflow gave archosaurs a competitive advantage during the low oxygen conditions of the early Triassic by increasing their capacity for exercise. Thus, the alligator's one-way path for breathing could help explain where dinosaurs got the breath to climb to dominance of the earth.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→