Avian Heterothermy: A Review of Patterns and Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many birds reduce rest-phase energy demands through heterothermy, physiological responses involving facultative, reversible reductions in metabolic rate and body temperature (Tb). Here, we review the phylogenetic distribution and ecological contexts of avian heterothermy. Heterothermy has been reported in 140 species representing 15 orders and 39 families. Recent work supports the view that deep heterothermy is most pronounced in phylogenetically older taxa whereas heterothermy in passerines and other recently diverged taxa is shallower and confined to minimum Tb > 20°C. The reasons why deep heterothermy is absent in passerines remain unclear; we speculate an evolutionary trade-off may exist between the capacity to achieve low heterothermic Tb and the tolerance of hyperthermic Tb. Inter- and intraspecific variation in heterothermy is correlated with factors including foraging ecology (e.g., territoriality and defense of food resources among hummingbirds), food availability and foraging opportunities (e.g., lunar phase predicts torpor use in caprimulgids), and predation risk. Heterothermy also plays a major role before and during migration. Emerging questions include the magnitude of energy savings associated with heterothermy among free-ranging birds, the role phylogenetic variation in the capacity for heterothermy has played in evolutionary radiations into extreme habitats, and how the capacity for heterothermy affects avian vulnerability to rapid anthropogenic climate change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".