4.5 Article

Temperature alone is insufficient to understand hibernation energetics

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 224, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.239772

关键词

Body composition; Torpor; Perimyotis subflavus; Potential evaporative water loss; Water vapor deficit; White-nose syndrome

类别

资金

  1. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
  2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  3. Bat Conservation International
  4. Texas Tech University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that fat mass was the best predictor of female mass loss during hibernation, while males adopted a more energetically conservative hibernation strategy. The results demonstrate that understanding the evolution of behavior, physiology and ecology of hibernation requires disentangling the relative contributions of multiple drivers of hibernation energetics, and that ambient temperature is not always the most important factor driving energy expenditure.
Energy conservation has long been a focal point in hibernation research. A long-standing assumption is that ambient temperature (T-a) largely defines the rate of energy expenditure because of well-known relationships between T-a, metabolic rate and frequency of arousal from torpor. Body condition and humidity also affect energy expenditure but are usually considered secondary factors. We held tricolored bats (Perimyotis subflavus) in captivity under multiple environmental conditions to directly compare the importance of T-a, fat mass and humidity for hibernation energy expenditure. Fat mass was the best predictor of female mass loss, followed by T-a and humidity. However, males had less fat and adopted a more energetically conservative hibernation strategy. Our results demonstrate that understanding the evolution of behavior, physiology and ecology of hibernation requires disentangling the relative contributions of multiple drivers of hibernation energetics, and that T-a is not always the most important factor driving energy expenditure.

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

4.5
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