MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2325861553 · doi:10.1242/jeb.051300

ENDOTHERM METABOLISM TOO HOT TO HANDLE

2010· article· en· W2325861553 on OpenAlexaff
Murray M. Humphries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndothermOffspringLimitingContext (archaeology)ThermoregulationHomeothermyThermal management of electronic devices and systemsBiologyReproductionEnergy metabolismAnimal scienceDissipationEcologyEndocrinologyThermodynamicsPhysicsPregnancyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy is presumed to be limited in supply, body warmth is presumed to be a benefit of endothermy, and fractal distribution networks are presumed to constrain the metabolic design of organisms. However, a new Journal of Animal Ecology paper by John Speakman and Elzbieta Król from the University of Aberdeen challenges all three premises by proposing that limits to heat dissipation explain the scaling of endotherm metabolism and constrain metabolic performance during periods of intense sustained energy expenditure, such as reproduction.Speakman and Król review a long series of investigations published in The Journal of Experimental Biology seeking to identify factors limiting milk and offspring production in lactating mice. They describe how lactating mice housed in the cold increased food intake, produced more milk and raised faster growing pups than mice held at warmer temperatures. The possibility that cold environments are advantageous to lactating mice because they can produce more milk when it is easier to dissipate heat could explain the experimental evidence but is heretical in the context of prevailing ideas about the warm-body benefits of endothermy. However, a later paper in this series clinched support for this heresy. Shaving fur from the dorsal surface of lactating mice, which increases their capacity to dissipate heat without altering the thermal environment experienced by their offspring, substantially improves their reproductive performance. Body heat is a parental care problem rather than a parental care solution, at least for lactating mice in captivity.Having identified heat dissipation as a limiting factor, Speakman and Król proceed by developing a mechanistic model of endotherm heat dissipation, which predicts that the maximum capacity to dissipate heat increases with body size with an exponent of about 0.63. This provides a much better empirical match to the scaling of field metabolic rate than the 0.75 exponent predicted by the metabolic theory of ecology. Often the residuals around these allometric patterns are as informative as the slope of the overall relationship, and Speakman and Król speculate that marine mammals have higher rates of energy expenditure than other similar-sized mammals because they occupy aquatic environments that are highly conducive to heat dissipation. The authors invert the observation that many animals increase insulation in winter to ask why animals reduce insulation in summer if heat and energy conservation is a year-round priority. Speakman and Król also suggest that latitudinal patterns of body size variation – first described by Carl Bergmann in 1847 – are driven by more intense selection for the reproductive advantages of small body size and heat dissipation in warm environments.Is body warmth generally a cost rather than a benefit of endothermy? Does heat dissipation capacity offer a better explanation for the allometric scaling of endotherm metabolism than fractal distribution networks? Are major trade-offs in endotherm energy allocation governed by constraints associated with energy demand rather than energy supply? These are revolutionary and readily testable hypotheses proposed by Speakman and Król reflecting major uncertainties and research opportunities in endotherm energetics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→