4.5 Article

Trading heat and hops for water: Dehydration effects on locomotor performance, thermal limits, and thermoregulatory behavior of a terrestrial toad

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 7, 期 21, 页码 9066-9075

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3219

关键词

Bufonidae; critical temperatures; optimal temperatures; preferred body temperatures; tolerance range

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior [192868 - 1]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [13/04190-9, 2017/13005-1]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [302045/2012-0, 306811/2015-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to their highly permeable skin and ectothermy, terrestrial amphibians are challenged by compromises between water balance and body temperature regulation. The way in which such compromises are accommodated, under a range of temperatures and dehydration levels, impacts importantly the behavior and ecology of amphibians. Thus, using the terrestrial toad Rhinella schneideri as a model organism, the goals of this study were twofold. First, we determined how the thermal sensitivity of a centrally relevant trait-locomotion-was affected by dehydration. Secondly, we examined the effects of the same levels of dehydration on thermal preference and thermal tolerance. As dehydration becomes more severe, the optimal temperature for locomotor performance was lowered and performance breadth narrower. Similarly, dehydration was accompanied by a decrease in the thermal tolerance range. Such a decrease was caused by both an increase in the critical minimal temperature and a decrease in the thermal maximal temperature, with the latter changing more markedly. In general, our results show that the negative effects of dehydration on behavioral performance and thermal tolerance are, at least partially, counteracted by concurrent adjustments in thermal preference. We discuss some of the potential implications of this observation for the conservation of anuran amphibians.

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