4.7 Article

Flexibility in an emergency life-history stage: acute food deprivation prevents sickness behaviour but not the immune response

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.0842

关键词

songbird; zebra finch; lipopolysaccharide; starvation; physio-behavioural network; corticosterone

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE 1106400]
  2. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
  3. Sigma Xi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergency life-history stage (ELHS) can be divided into two subcategories that describe distinct, coordinated responses to disease- or non-disease-related physiological challenges. Whether an individual can simultaneously express aspects of both subcategories when faced with multiple challenges is poorly understood. Emergency life-history theory suggests that disease- and non-disease-related responses are coordinated at the level of the whole organism and therefore cannot be expressed simultaneously. However, the reactive scope and physiological regulatory network models suggest that traits can be independently regulated, allowing for components of both disease- and non-disease-related responses to be simultaneously expressed within a single organism. To test these ideas experimentally, we subjected female zebra finches to food deprivation, an immune challenge, both, or neither, and measured a suite of behavioural and physiological traits involved in the ELHS. We examined whether the trait values expressed by birds experiencing simultaneous challenges resembled trait values of birds experiencing a single challenge or if birds could express a mixture of trait values concurrently. We find that birds can respond to simultaneous challenges by regulating components of the behavioural and immune responses independently of one another. Modularity within these physio-behavioural networks adds additional dimensions to how we evaluate the intensity or quality of an ELHS. Whether modularity provides fitness advantages or costs in nature remains to be determined.

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

4.7
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