The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The costs of autotomy and regeneration in animals: a review and framework for future research
Abstract
Many organisms have the ability to shed an appendage (autotomy) to escape a predator or fouled molting event. Despite its immediate advantage on survivorship, autotomy can have important consequences for locomotion, foraging, survivorship, and/or reproduction. Thus, regeneration is a way that animals alleviate some of the costs associated with losing an appendage. Like autotomy, however, appendage regeneration can have important consequences for a variety of aspects of fitness; in a wide range of amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and arthropods, the allocation of resources to regenerate a lost appendage negatively affects somatic or reproductive growth. Previous research into the costs associated with regeneration has provided a strong framework to explore how trade-offs associated with regeneration may have influenced its evolution. However, all research to date describing the costs and benefits associated with autotomy and regeneration have compared individuals autotomizing and regenerating an appendage with individuals that have never lost an appendage. I suggest that for studies of the evolutionary significance of regeneration, an alternative comparison is between individuals experiencing autotomy without regeneration and individuals experiencing autotomy with regeneration. Future work in this direction promises new insights into the evolution of regenerative tendencies, as well as how regeneration may be influencing animal form and function. Copyright 2006.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Evolution of animal regeneration: re-emergence of a field
Bely, A. E., & Nyberg, K. G. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.005 · Cited by 512
Bidaye, S. S., Bockemühl, T., & Büschges, A. (2018) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00658.2017 · Cited by 152
Metadata
- Authors
- Maginnis, T. L.
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-06-19
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 857-872
- ISSN
- 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7279
- OpenAlex
- W2112328115
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The costs of autotomy and regeneration in animals: a review and framework for future research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/beheco/arl010
- The paper
- Maginnis, T. L. (2006). The costs of autotomy and regeneration in animals: a review and framework for future research. Behavioral Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.