On the interplay between hypothermia and reproduction in a high arctic ungulate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For free-ranging animals living in seasonal environments, hypometabolism (lowered metabolic rate) and hypothermia (lowered body temperature) can be effective physiological strategies to conserve energy when forage resources are low. To what extent such strategies are adopted by large mammals living under extreme conditions, as those encountered in the high Arctic, is largely unknown, especially for species where the gestation period overlaps with the period of lowest resource availability (i.e. winter). Here we investigated for the first time the level to which high arctic muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) adopt hypothermia and tested the hypothesis that individual plasticity in the use of hypothermia depends on reproductive status. We measured core body temperature over most of the gestation period in both free-ranging muskox females in Greenland and captive female muskoxen in Alaska. We found divergent overwintering strategies according to reproductive status, where pregnant females maintained stable body temperatures during winter, while non-pregnant females exhibited a temporary decrease in their winter body temperature. These results show that muskox females use hypothermia during periods of resource scarcity, but also that the use of this strategy may be limited to non-reproducing females. Our findings suggest a trade-off between metabolically-driven energy conservation during winter and sustaining foetal growth, which may also apply to other large herbivores living in highly seasonal environments elsewhere.
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 | 0.000 | 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".