Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Dinosaur Lungs

Echoed on the Panda's Thumb

Next time you're cutting up a fresh bird, try looking for the lungs. They're about where you'd expect them to be, but they're nestled up dorsally against the ribs and vertebrae, and they're surprisingly small. If you think about it, the the thorax of a bird is a fairly rigid box, with that large sternal keel up front and short ribs—it's a wonder that they are able to get enough air from those tiny organs with relatively little capability for expanding and contracting the chest.

How they do it is an amazing story. Birds have a radically effective respiratory system that works rather differently than ours, with multiple adaptations working together to improve their ability to take in oxygen. There is also a growing body of evidence that dinosaurs also shared many of these adaptations, tightening their link to birds and also making them potentially even more fierce—they were big, they were active, and their lungs were turbocharged.

Inhalation: inflate lungs and posterior air sacs
bird respiration
Exhalation: empty the anterior air sac, fill lungs with air from the posterior sac
bird respiration
Inhalation: inflate posterior sac with fresh air, fill anterior sac with air from the lung
bird respiration
Exhalation: empty anterior sac, fill lung with air from the posterior sac
bird respiration

I'm going to give a very brief overview of the main properties of the avian lung; if you want more details, I'll recommend this fine class site. But first, a quick review of how your lungs work. Your lungs are a kind of blind sac with one opening; muscles expand your rib cage or depress the diaphragm, decreasing the pressure in the lungs and sucking fresh air into them. The air inflates tiny epithelial balloons called alveoli, which are rich in blood vessels. Your blood extracts the oxygen from the inhaled air and dumps carbon dioxide into the alveoli…and your muscles then compress the lungs, forcing the stale air out. And the cycle is repeated on and on, alternating filling with rich, fresh air and expelling old, stale air.

Birds have a couple of other features to their respiratory system: air sacs. Many of their bones are perforated and hollow, and contain air-filled membranes connected to the lungs and trachea. There is a set of anterior air sacs, and another set of posterior sacs, with the lungs located between them. One function, perhaps the primitive function, of these sacs is to simply lighten the structure of the animal—important in flyers, of course, but also useful in large animals that just need to reduce the burden of all that bony weight.

The sacs have also been couple to breathing. Instead of inflating their lungs directly, birds inflate the air sacs first, and then the sacs are compressed like a bellows to drive air through the lungs. There is a fairly complex, continuous cycle of respiration, illustrated in the diagrams to the right. One set of sacs is being inflated by inhalation, and then air is expelled from the sacs through the lungs and to the other set, and then expelled from the sacs to the trachea. It actually takes two breaths to move an intake of air through the complex of sacs and lungs.

So what's the advantage? One is that there isn't any dead air: the lungs aren't ever filled with stale carbon dioxide rich air that needs to be expelled before more can be taken in. Fresh air flows continuously through the lungs. Another is that the air always moves in the same direction; the blue arrows in the diagram show that the flow of air through the lungs is always from left to right. A bird's lungs do not contain the collection of tiny balloons ours do, but instead contains slim tubes that carry out the same function, and that are invested with blood vessels organized to most efficiently extract oxygen. It's very impressive, and I've got to admit, if there were a designer, he should have used this design in us mammals, too. We were robbed.

You can see just how pneumatic birds are in this latex-injected duck—everything that's blue is part of the system of air sacs.

bird air sacs
a, Latex injection (blue) of the pulmonary system in a duck (Anas crecca), highlighting the extent of air sacs throughout the body. b, Main components of the avian flow-through system (ribs have been illustrated in their proper anatomical positions). Abd, abdominal air sac; Cdth, caudal thoracic air sac, Cl, clavicular air sac; Crth, cranial thoracic air sac; Cv, cervical air sac; Fu, furcula; Hu, humerus; Lu, lung; Lvd, lateral vertebral diverticula; Pv, pelvis; Tr, trachea.

What you can't quite see in that picture is how pervasive the sacs are. Some of the vertebrae, the ribs, the sternum, and some long bones have openings called pneumatic foramina, and diverticula of the sacs infiltrate right down into the core of the bones. Here on the left, for instance, are some vertebrae from a crane and most of the holes (NaP and CeP) are places where the air sacs slip in.

bird air sacs
Comparisons between a bird (a, b) and theropod dinosaur (c, d) in caudal (a, c) and right lateral (b, d) views, illustrating the topological similarity of pneumatic features. a, b, Cranial thoracic vertebra of a sarus crane (Grus antigone, SBU AV104063). c, d, Mid-cervical (c) and cervicothoracic (d) vertebra of an abelisauroid theropod (Majungatholus atopus, UA 8678). Scale bar, 1 cm (a, b) and 3 cm in (c, d). CeP, central pneumatic foramen; NaP, neural arch pneumatic foramen; Nc, neural canal; Ns, neural spine; Pp, parapophysis.

The vertebrae on the right are fossils from a theropod, Majungatholus atopus. Notice any similarity with the crane?

What the investigators did in this study was analyze the location of these foramina in a specimen of Majungatholus and reconstruct the likely position of the air sacs (which were not preserved, unsurprisingly—they would consist of thin membranes in the living animal). What they found is diagrammed below: the animal had both an anterior set of air sacs (in green) and a posterior set (in blue), with the lungs (in orange) between them. In the absence of soft tissues, it is not a conclusive demonstration…but it is very suggestive that the theropods had a flow-through respiratory system like modern birds.

bird air sacs
a, Pulmonary components based directly on vertebral morphology in UA 8678 include the following: cervical system (green), lung (orange) and abdominal system (blue). In modern birds, clavicular and thoracic air sacs are also present (see Fig. 1); their placement here (indicated in light grey), combined with the overlapping nature of other components, represents tertiary-level inferences emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the reconstruction of soft tissues not constrained by osteological evidence. Unknown skeletal elements are indicated by dark grey shading. b−f, Vertebrae (b−e) and rib (f) of UA 8678 illustrating pneumatic features. b, Second cervical; c, first thoracic; d, ninth thoracic (reversed); e, sacral complex, left lateral view; f, left ninth cervical rib, medial view (reversed). CeP, central pneumatic foramen; CoP, costal pneumatic foramen; Cp, capitulum; IvF, intervertebral foramen; NaP, neural arch pneumatic foramen; Ns, neural spine; Pp, parapophysis; Tb, tuberculum.

The observations suggest further links between bird and saurian anatomy and physiology, and also support the idea of high metabolic activity in dinosaurs.

Recent studies of non-avian theropod dinosaurs have documented several features once thought solely to characterize living birds, including the presence of feather-like integumentary specializations, rapid, avian-like growth rates, 28, and even bird-like behaviours captured in the fossil record. Either implicitly or explicitly, these studies have linked anatomical, physiological or behavioural inferences with an increased metabolic potential, suggesting that if not bird-like in metabolism, theropods were at least 'more similar' to birds than to reptiles. Our study indicates that basal neotheropods possessed the anatomical potential for flow-through ventilation of the pulmonary system, emphasizing the early evolution of respiratory adaptations that are consistent with elevated metabolic rates in predatory dinosaurs.


O'Connor PM, Claessens LPAM (2005) Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436:253-256.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2590/F73ABvSp/

Comments:
's avatar #32161: — 07/14  at  10:47 PM
The tubular continuous flow must have important thermodynamic effects on the bird, working as Thorbjorn mentioned, as a heat exchanger. Birds have higher metabolism and work at a higher temperature than mammals so they need to evacuate a lot of heat fast.

Air cooled systems like those of Citroen have their advantages, but in cold climates birds may be unable to uptake enough oxygen without feeling the chill in their bones (literally). It would be interesting to see the adaptations of penguins and other polar birds. Mammals vesicular system may be better in cold climates, and also "we" have been able to adapt to water life, which bird never managed. I dont think we have a strong case against the Designer for faulty, unintelligent design of our oxygenation system. Maybe with a good lawyer...

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#32162: — 07/14  at  10:55 PM
Mammals vesicular system may be better in cold climates, and also "we" have been able to adapt to water life, which bird never managed.


Erm, tell it to the penguins, on both counts. True, they aren't completely aquatic the way that cetaceans are, but I'm guessing that's more a consequence of the reproductive process than anything else.



#32163: — 07/14  at  10:57 PM
Whoops. Just re-read your comment and saw the penguin reference, so never mind the "on both counts" part.



's avatar #32166: Raven — 07/15  at  12:32 AM
Hi, Arun--

I also wonder whether the mammalian brain is as much of a kludge as its lungs are when compared to the alternative found in birds.


There is definitely some evidence along the lines you indicate. Okuyama, Okuyama, Okuyama et al (heh! smile ) at the Evolution of Diseases Laboratory, Sendai, Japan [website in Japanese only, unfortunately, for those of us who don't read it], argue that strokes may be a consequence of hominization:

Okuyama S, Okuyama J, Okuyama J, Tamatsu Y, Shimada K, Hoshi H, Iwai J. The arterial circle of Willis of the mouse helps to decipher secrets of cerebral vascular accidents in the human. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(6):997-1009.

The human brain represents an elaborate product of hominizing evolution. Likewise, its supporting vasculature may also embody evolutionary consequences. Thus, it is conceivable that the human tendency to develop cerebral vascular accidents (CVAs) might represent a disease of hominization. In a search for hominizing changes on the arterial circle of Willis (hWAC), we attempted an anatomical comparison of the hWAC with that of the mouse (mWAC) by injecting aliquots of resin into the vasculature of the mouse and then creating vascular endocasts of the mWAC. The internal carotid artery of the mouse (mICA) unites with the mWAC midway between the middle cerebral artery (mMCA) and posterior cerebral artery (mPCA). The mWAC does not complete a circle: the mWAC nourishes the anterior portion of the circle which branches out to the olfactory artery (OlfA) and mPCA, along with the mMCA, and the basilar artery (mBA) does not connect to the mPCA. The OlfA is thicker than the mMCA. The relative brain weight of the mouse was 74 g on average for a 60 kg male and 86 g for a 60 kg female, respectively, as compared with 1424 g for a 60 kg man. These findings are consistent with the mouse being a nocturnal carnivore that lives on olfactory information in contrast to the human that lives diurnally and depends on visual and auditory information. In man, the human ICA (hICA) unites with the hWAC at a point where the human middle cerebral artery (hMCA) branches out, and thus, blood from the hICA does not flow through the hWAC but drains into the hMCA directly. The hMCA is thicker than the anterior cerebral artery. The hPCA receives blood from the hBA rather than from the hICA, and thus, the entire hWAC forms a closed circuit. Since the hICA drains directly into the hMCA without flowing a distance through the hWAC, the capacitor and equalizer functions of the WAC will be mitigated so much that the resultant hemodynamic changes would render the hMCA more likely to contribute to CVAs. Thus, anatomical findings and possibly functions of the arterial circle of Willi may vary from one species to another, depending on one's specific cerebral evolution.


Nomen Nescio--comparative anatomy is neat, isn't it? That's why I don't get how people like Frederick Turner accuse scientists of being nihilistic about studying a subject with so much wonder and elegance. Personally, I never can get enough of it.



's avatar #32167: — 07/15  at  02:18 AM
Birds tend to freeze and drop dead from the air with the first fresh winter breeze. If dinosaurs were anything like them, and they were, a short Ice Age may have be enough to finish them off. Only those flying dinosaurs that could migrate to warmer climates in winter made it. That explains maybe why there are no dinosaurs left but plenty of birds. From the poultry industry point of view, chicken freeze wonderfully. They take up a a lot of water so a frozen chicken weights more than a living one. We mammals love frozen chicken, and probably loved frozen dinosaur too. The climate has changed since then several times but those chickenbrained birds did not notice and they keep migrating from Siberia to Australia each winter. Those crazy migrations may be consequence of being locked into a fixed stupid mental pattern while the position of the continents slowly changed. A sole excentric bird that did migrate with their folk to Australia but preferred to stay say at Phoket in Thailandia, may have the whole beach for himself but the girls would be vacationing in Australia. Intelligence, my boy, gets no respect with girls, said papa jaimito.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#32173: the amazing kim — 07/15  at  07:40 AM
"the lung would have to get disproportionatelly large in order to service the oxygen needs of such a large body"

not being facetious or anything, but what do elephants do?



#32192: — 07/15  at  10:27 AM
kim: apart from being a lot smaller than the largest of the dinosaurs, it also appears they have a lung structure unlike the rest of us mammals. (PubMed abstract.) i'll grant you that (what is apparently agreed to be) adaptations for snorkelling while walking underwater might not be useful for simply growing very large, but if their lungs are unique in one way, perhaps another too...?

(sidetrack: who knew there's an entire database about elephant care out there on the web? the things you find online...)

i suppose what we really should be asking is how the great blue whale breathes and exchanges gasses. IIRC it's larger than any dinosaur ever got, after all. perhaps its adaptations for long-lasting dives help...?



#32195: — 07/15  at  10:49 AM
Nice commentaries. After posting, I seemed to remember that the holed bones of birds are also involved in heat dissipation, maybe more so.

Another example would be heat exchangers to cool the head such as in antelopes like the gnu, if I remember correctly.

Avian flu usually doesn't make wild birds respiratory ill, which continues to make me wonder if perhaps the bird construction is sturdier. (Domesticated birds rarely live healthy, so I wouldn't count them into this.)

jaimito: The name of the asa god is 'Tor' which goes into my name ('the bear of Thor' in translation). The english spelling you used is a pronounciation tool. Sorry for setting you straight, but I am a bit testy about uncalled for anglification in these days...



#32196: Redshift — 07/15  at  10:52 AM
One thing I'm not clear on (maybe I should just read the detailed lesson) -- what mechanism inflates and deflates the air sacs? If they're all over the place and even inside bones, it obviously isn't a ribcage/diaphragm type of thing. Or is it an indirect effect from inflating/deflating the lungs?



's avatar #32197: Raven — 07/15  at  11:01 AM
Sorry for setting you straight, but I am a bit testy about uncalled for anglification in these days...


Oops--I didn't see this before asking you about it in another thread--sorry!

If "misery loves company" is any consolation, when I lived in Germany, I used to go by my middle name, Siobhán, pronounced "Sha-VONNE" as in the original Gaelic. The whole time I lived in Kiel, though, people could never get it right--I was always "Schwann".

Which is ok; there are worse things to be called than "swan".



#32199: — 07/15  at  11:18 AM
Oh, and Arun:

I don't know if you meant only the circulation system in the brains. But I think the bird brain has no or little gray matter and convolutions. (They don't really fit.) And that it has been observed that bird uses the white matter for functions that mammals use gray matter for.

So one could perhaps say that a bird brain is simpler and not such a concoction as the mammalian brain. Small volume/wheight considerations should tend to make bird solutions more efficient.

Efficient respiratory and circulatory systems may be found in some fish as well. Again, I have no references, but I seem to remember that tuna and possibly sharks can make such endurance speed feats that they are practically warm blooded.

Solved oxygen in water (DO) seems to be about 10 ppm which is far less than our usual 21 % in air. So they may be severely constrained compared to us.



#32201: Jeremy Osner — 07/15  at  11:41 AM
NN -- the largest dinosaurs were not theropods -- did sauropods have this respiratory system too? I think they were much slower beasts than most theropods so may not have needed it.



#32202: — 07/15  at  11:42 AM
Raven:

It's always okey to ask, it's also okey to ask repeatedly. (Well, up to a point...)

'Siobhán' is a beautiful name, what a pity they mangled it. Raven, Swan; that's a theme right there.

In US they called me 'Turbo' since an englishman can't pronounce 'ö' in 'björn'. (It's close to an 'o' in mouth formation but the sound comes from much deeper in and has little resemblance. A _very_ rapid 'oe' is close, but not quite.)

Which I'm not so sure was flattering. 'Turbo' seems to be a gay dancer in some early dance film, and one of the first HIV victims. I can go for the dance part (I like aerobics more than weights) but the gay part doesn't really suit me... But hopefully they alluded to my energy?!



's avatar #32205: — 07/15  at  12:21 PM
Torbjorn, I am sorry for the involuntary "anglification" of your name. Turbo may have referred to your turbocharged performance in some sport. BTW, 10 ppm DO may be reached in fjords, in our warm oceans it is more like 5 ppm in the upper layer. The problem faced by our great-great-grandfather the lungfish in his incursions to dry land was how to limit his oxygen uptake.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



's avatar #32211: Tlazolteotl — 07/15  at  02:02 PM
Isn't it true that birds don't even have diaphragms? And I think the bellows action that drives air into the air sacs is aided by the muscles that are used in flying - so their respiratory systems are even more efficient when they are flying than when at rest.

I don't know if respiratory infections are necessarily more serious in birds than in mammals, but if you keep birds, you do need to watch for mold (and birds do like to have their baths, so they throw water around a lot). Parrots can get some nasty respiratory infections from Aspergillus molds, and they are very difficult to treat.



#32213: pough — 07/15  at  03:48 PM
Hey afarensis, what's up with the crazy line breaks in the middle of sentences on your site? What tools do you use for creating those pages?



#32215: — 07/15  at  06:51 PM
"Parrots can get some nasty respiratory infections from Aspergillus molds,..."

I guess it's settled then. Maybe infection rates and severities are balanced to be 'just so' regardless of system.

BTW I _hate_ fungus; I get yeast infections just by looking at a woman... But no serious fungi, so far.



#32216: — 07/15  at  07:38 PM
Before we get too far on about the superiority of avian/therapsid respiration compared with mammalian respiration, can I ask what is the energy cost? Mammalian lungs have a low energy cost due to elastic recoil during ehalation (we only use muscular effort during forceful exhalation). Do the avian air sacs have the same property, or is there an energy cost to moving air from one region to another? If so, then mammals may conserve more energy during breathing than birds. The avian/therapsid respiratory model may only be a more effective method of extracting oxygen during high metabolic activities, like flying; or extracting oxygen at extremely low pressures (I bet that, even with bird brains, they fly around Everest rather than over it).



#32220: — 07/15  at  08:38 PM
Pough,
I have two sites (afarensis and Transistions) which one has the line breaks? If, it's Transitions it may be because I cut and pasted the last post from an email (bootstrap analysis donated it - I wonder if there are any other kind hearted bloggers out there who would be willing to donate, say a post on dinosaur lungs, to the worthy cause of educating our children? Maybe if I mention that Wilkins already donated a post?)Also, what kind of browser are you using?



's avatar #32225: Raven — 07/15  at  10:53 PM
William:

Mammalian lungs have a low energy cost due to elastic recoil during ehalation (we only use muscular effort during forceful exhalation).


Which is also why a lot of air remains in our lungs--we don't force it out. That's the reason the rescue breathing part of CPR works--when we blow it into another person's lungs, it's not just our carbon dioxide we're blowing in; if it were, they'd suffocate from our resuscitation attempts. The residual air in the lungs contains enough oxygen to tide them over until (it is to be hoped) they start breathing again on their own.

So I would hypothesize that birds would suck at administering CPR, because they use oxygen so efficiently that their residual volume doesn't support rescue breathing. Well, and for other reasons, too smile.

(I bet that, even with bird brains, they fly around Everest rather than over it).


That's certainly how I'd fly over the Himalayas, because I'm all about making it less effort. But apparently the Himalayan barred goose (Anser indicus) is kind of an overachiever, because climbers on the mountain report seeing them directly overhead.

At that site, Cecil also reports that in 1975 a Rüppell's griffon (Gyps rueppelli) was sucked into a jet engine 37,900 feet up, as well as several other cases in the 20K range. So the "best" respiratory system depends on your purpose--for flying over the Himalayas, it's birds hands down; for administering CPR, mammals are more appropriate.



's avatar #32236: — 07/16  at  05:41 AM
Re energy-efficiency, continuous systems are more efficient than batch systems. Wankel engine is more efficent than alternating piston internal combustion engines. On that account alone, birds should carry the competition. But there are other factors too. Fish must be even more efficient.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#32244: Arun — 07/16  at  07:37 AM
But apparently the Himalayan barred goose (Anser indicus) is kind of an overachiever, because climbers on the mountain report seeing them directly overhead.


Flying way above the turbulence and bad weather? Presumably lazy geese have found themselves selected against by crashing into mountainsides?



Trackback: Bird-breath Tracked on: PhaWRONGula (72.9.234.70) at 2005 07 16 09:35:52
Somewhere inside the ribcage Birds are weird; They have lungs fed by air sacs Through which each breath is steered...



#32265: — 07/16  at  07:13 PM
Really great post.

But I have a few questions...
How does these foundings affects the estimations of weight and speed?

How soon these tiny clues of an avian-like lung system starts to appear in dinosaurs?

And semi-OT, about birds descending from mammals... early molecular data pointed to that, which is obviously wrong, but I don't know yet which sort of mistake led to this result.



#32289: — 07/17  at  11:48 AM
William:

So you are suggesting that mammals are better at being lazy? Perhaps other mammals can use that between kills or while grazing. But we humans could sure use more active effectivity, for extreme situations and perhaps to live longer.

Raven:

I'm not sure I understood your argument completely - I think you mean the rescuers residual air supply the oxygen to the rescuee.

That might be true but I would need numbers or a reference to be satisfied. Our oxygen scavenging isn't completely 100 % effective, especially in a rescuing situation where you do forced breathing and also expand the lung more.

Some numbers of my own from http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Total_lung_capacity:
- Tidal Volume (normal respiration) is typically 0.5 dm^3.
- Residual Volume is (technically) left after maximum exhalation: typically 1.5 out of 6 dm^3.
- Respiratory Quotient is rate of CO2 production/rate of O2 consumption. RQ is typically 80 %.

Offhand I would say that 0.2*4.5 (normal residual oxygen, max volume; 'CPR') > 0.8*0.5 (normal demand), but the rescuee is oxygen starved and the CPR may give more or less oxygen, so it's hard to judge from this sloppy calculation.



Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

Next entry: Off to Toronto tomorrow!

Previous entry: Coleman ♥ Turdblossom

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college