4.6 Review

Re-examining extreme sleep duration in bats: implications for sleep phylogeny, ecology, and function

期刊

SLEEP
卷 45, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsac064

关键词

Chiroptera; sleep; torpor; social behavior

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/S515541/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reexamines the evidence for the characterization of bats as extreme sleepers and discusses whether it accurately represents the sleep behavior of Chiroptera. The study finds interspecific variation in sleep duration among bats and suggests the need for future research in naturalistic environments.
Bats, quoted as sleeping for up to 20 h a day, are an often used example of extreme sleep duration amongst mammals. Given that duration has historically been one of the primary metrics featured in comparative studies of sleep, it is important that species specific sleep durations are well founded. Here, we re-examined the evidence for the characterization of bats as extreme sleepers and discuss whether it provides a useful representation of the sleep behavior of Chiroptera. Although there are a wealth of activity data to suggest that the diurnal cycle of bats is dominated by rest, estimates of sleep time generated from electrophysiological analyses suggest considerable interspecific variation, ranging from 83% to a more moderate 61% of the 24 h day spent asleep. Temperature-dependent changes in the duration and electroencephalographic profile of sleep suggest that bats represent a unique model for investigating the relationship between sleep and torpor. Further sources of intra-specific variation in sleep duration, including the impact of artificial laboratory environments and sleep intensity, remain unexplored. Future studies conducted in naturalistic environments, using larger sample sizes and relying on a pre-determined set of defining criteria will undoubtedly provide novel insights into sleep in bats and other species.

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

4.6
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