4.2 Article

The Impact of Humidity on Evaporative Cooling in Small Desert Birds Exposed to High Air Temperatures

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY
卷 87, 期 6, 页码 782-795

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/678956

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-1122228]
  2. DST/National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environmental temperatures that exceed body temperature (T-b) force endothermic animals to rely solely on evaporative cooling to dissipate heat. However, evaporative heat dissipation can be drastically reduced by environmental humidity, imposing a thermoregulatory challenge. The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of humidity on the thermoregulation of desert birds and to compare the sensitivity of cutaneous and respiratory evaporation to reduced vapor density gradients. Rates of evaporative water loss, metabolic rate, and T-b were measured in birds exposed to humidities ranging from approximate to 2 to 30 g H2O m(-3) (0%-100% relative humidity at 30 degrees C) at air temperatures between 44 degrees and 56 degrees C. In sociable weavers, a species that dissipates heat primarily through panting, rates of evaporative water loss were inhibited by as much as 36% by high humidity at 48 degrees C, and these birds showed a high degree of hyperthermia. At lower temperatures (40 degrees-44 degrees C), evaporative water loss was largely unaffected by humidity in this species. In Namaqua doves, which primarily use cutaneous evaporation, increasing humidity reduced rates of evaporative water loss, but overall rates of water loss were lower than those observed in sociable weavers. Our data suggest that cutaneous evaporation is more efficient than panting, requiring less water to maintain T-b at a given temperature, but panting appears less sensitive to humidity over the air temperature range investigated here.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据