MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3082372374 · doi:10.1242/jeb.214494

Drinking desert birds keep cool

2020· article· en· W3082372374 on OpenAlexaff
Brittney G. Borowiec

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesert (philosophy)Evaporative coolerCommitEcologyWater intakeEnvironmental scienceThirstBiologyZoologyMeteorologyGeographyEnvironmental engineeringPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As is often the case for animals living in extreme environments, desert birds face a choice between two competing physiological needs: in their case it's staying cool (which uses up a lot of body water) versus staying hydrated. Birds deal with this trade-off in different ways: some species make daily visits to reliable watering holes, sometimes flying considerable distances to quench their thirst, while other species hardly drink at all and conserve every drop they can get from meals of juicy insects. Zenon Czenze, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, and colleagues investigated the implications of these different drinking habits for the thermal physiology of desert birds.The team hypothesized that the heat tolerance of desert birds co-evolved with their dependence on surface water sources and, correspondingly, how much water they could commit to fending off the desert heat. Animals naturally lose water across their skin and when they breathe, a process known as evaporative water loss. Some animals, including sweating humans and panting dogs, turn this loss into their gain by getting rid of a little bit of body heat as the water turns into vapour, a process termed evaporative cooling. Czenze and colleagues predicted that birds that regularly imbibed fluids would take greater advantage of evaporative cooling to dump excess heat. With this additional cooling capacity, the team also expected that drinking species would tolerate hotter temperatures than species that rarely frequent watering holes.To test these ideas, the researchers rounded up 12 species of songbirds with either drinking or non-drinking lifestyles from the Nama Karoo shrubland in South Africa. They implanted the animals with temperature sensors and measured their body temperature, metabolic rate and evaporative water loss rate at progressively higher temperatures.As the temperature climbed, every species of bird examined increased their rate of evaporative water loss by panting. The species that refrained from drinking increased their rate of evaporative water loss 8-fold, whereas drinking species increased it 12-fold, showing that drinking species had more scope for evaporative cooling than species that drink little. Drinking species also had greater heat tolerance than non-drinking species and could withstand air temperatures of 52°C or higher, while the non-drinking species maxed out at ‘only’ 50°C. In addition, the species that tolerated the hottest temperatures were also those that showed the greatest increase in water loss, cementing the link between filling up on surface water and heat tolerance.Almost everything comes down to conserving water or staying cool in the desert and arid-zone birds approach this trade-off in different ways. Regularly drinking species capitalize on predictable water sources to supercharge their body's air-conditioning compared with their non-drinking relatives, highlighting the close interrelationships between diet, movement ecology and thermal physiology in desert birds.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research→French-language works237,207→