4.7 Article

Evidence for energy savings from aerial running in the Svalbard rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta hyperborea)

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 278, Issue 1718, Pages 2654-2661

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2742

Keywords

cost of transport; energetics; respirometry; ptarmigan; biomechanics

Funding

  1. BBSRC [G01138/1]
  2. Capacity Building Award
  3. BPS
  4. HEFCE
  5. KTN
  6. MRC, UK
  7. NERC
  8. BBSRC [BB/G011338/1, BB/I021116/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G011338/1, BB/I021116/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Svalbard rock ptarmigans were walked and run upon a treadmill and their energy expenditure measured using respirometry. The ptarmigan used three different gaits: a walking gait at slow speeds (less than or equal to 0.75 m s(-1)), grounded running at intermediate speeds (0.75 m s(-1) < U < 1.67 m s(-1)) and aerial running at high speeds (greater than or equal to 1.67 m s(-1)). Changes of gait were associated with reductions in the gross cost of transport (COT; J kg(-1) m(-1)), providing the first evidence for energy savings with gait change in a small crouched-postured vertebrate. In addition, for the first time (excluding humans) a decrease in absolute metabolic energy expenditure (rate of O-2 consumption) in aerial running when compared with grounded running was identified. The COT versus U curve varies between species and the COT was cheaper during aerial running than grounded running, posing the question of why grounded running should be used at all. Existing explanations (e. g. stability during running over rocky terrain) amount to just so stories with no current evidence to support them. It may be that grounded running is just an artefact of treadmill studies. Research investigating the speeds used by animals in the field is sorely needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available