The sugar oxidation cascade: aerial refueling in hummingbirds and nectar bats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most hummingbirds and some species of nectar bats hover while feeding on floral nectar. While doing so, they achieve some of the highest mass-specific V(O(2)) values among vertebrates. This is made possible by enhanced functional capacities of various elements of the 'O(2) transport cascade', the pathway of O(2) from the external environment to muscle mitochondria. Fasted hummingbirds and nectar bats fly with respiratory quotients (RQs; V(CO(2))/V(O(2))) of ~0.7, indicating that fat fuels flight in the fasted state. During repeated hover-feeding on dietary sugar, RQ values progressively climb to ~1.0, indicating a shift from fat to carbohydrate oxidation. Stable carbon isotope experiments reveal that recently ingested sugar directly fuels ~80 and 95% of energy metabolism in hover-feeding nectar bats and hummingbirds, respectively. We name the pathway of carbon flux from flowers, through digestive and cardiovascular systems, muscle membranes and into mitochondria the 'sugar oxidation cascade'. O(2) and sugar oxidation cascades operate in parallel and converge in muscle mitochondria. Foraging behavior that favours the oxidation of dietary sugar avoids the inefficiency of synthesizing fat from sugar and breaking down fat to fuel foraging. Sugar oxidation yields a higher P/O ratio (ATP made per O atom consumed) than fat oxidation, thus requiring lower hovering V(O(2)) per unit mass. We propose that dietary sugar is a premium fuel for flight in nectarivorous, flying animals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".