Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We test the hypothesis that endotherm body temperature varies with diet. Location Global terrestrial ecosystems. Methods We compile data from the literature on diet and body temperature in mammals and birds. We analyse these and demonstrate global macrophysiological patterns. Results In mammals, carnivores overall have a lower mean body temperature (Tb) than either herbivores or omnivores. However, within carnivores, those taking vertebrate prey have a higher meanTbthan predators of invertebrates. Among herbivores, species eating grass, leaves or seeds have the highest meanTb, those taking fruit an intermediate meanTband those taking flowers or nectar the lowest meanTb. These patterns are robust to the influence of body mass and phylogenetic non‐independence. In birds the relationship betweenTband diet is complicated by a significant inverse relationship between body mass andTband strong dietary niche conservation within lineages. After allowing for body mass, herbivores show an identical qualitative pattern to mammals, whereas carnivores show the opposite trend to mammals: those taking invertebrate prey have a higher meanTbthan those taking vertebrates. Main conclusions There is a significant relationship between diet andTbin mammals. Birds show a qualitatively similar but non‐significant pattern. Published studies show that in reptiles and fish herbivory is largely confined to species that can maintain a relatively highTbeither by living in warm environments or through behavioural thermoregulation. We therefore propose a general relationship for all vertebrates: herbivory requires a warmer body than carnivory. The basal metabolic rate (BMR) will then be higher in herbivores because of the universal relationship betweenBMRandTb, together with the higher maintenance costs of their longer guts. We suggest that the evolution of endothermy was a key factor in the widespread incidence of herbivory in mammals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".