Author:
Evans Alina L.,Fuchs Boris,Singh Navinder J.,Thiel Alexandra,Giroud Sylvain,Blanc Stephane,Laske Timothy G.,Frobert Ole,Friebe Andrea,Swenson Jon E.,Arnemo Jon M.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Despite centuries of research, debate remains on the scaling of metabolic rate to mass especially for intraspecific cases. The high variation of body mass within brown bears presents a unique opportunity to study the intraspecific effects of body mass on physiological variables. The amplitude of metabolic rate reduction in hibernators is dependent on body mass of the species. Small hibernators have high metabolic rates when euthermic but experience a drastic decrease in body temperature during torpor, which is necessary to reach a very low metabolic rate. Conversely, large hibernators, such as the brown bear (Ursus arctos), show a moderate decrease in temperature during hibernation, thought to be related to the bear’s large size. We studied body mass, abdominal body temperature, heart rate, and accelerometer-derived activity from 63 free-ranging brown bears (1–15 years old, 15–233 kg). We tested for relationships between body mass and body temperature, heart rate, and hibernation duration.
Results
The smallest individuals maintained lower body temperatures during hibernation, hibernated longer, and ended hibernation later than large bears. Unlike body temperature, winter heart rates were not associated with body mass. In summer, the opposite pattern was found, with smaller individuals having higher body temperature and daytime heart rates. Body mass was associated with body temperature in the winter hypometabolic state, even in a large hibernating mammal. Smaller bears, which are known to have higher thermal conductance, reached lower body temperatures during hibernation. During summer, smaller bears had higher body temperatures and daytime heart rates, a phenomenon not previously documented within a single mammalian species.
Conclusion
We conclude that the smallest bears hibernated more deeply and longer than large bears, likely from a combined effect of basic thermodynamics, the higher need for energy savings, and a lower cost of warming up a smaller body.
Funder
Norwegian Environment Agency
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Austrian Science Fund
Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management
Research Council of Norway
Norwegian-American Fulbright Commission
American-Scandinavian Foundation
Morris Animal Foundation
Lundbeck Foundation
Augustinus Foundation
Hubert Curien Institute
Medtronic
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Animal Science and Zoology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference67 articles.
1. Whitfield J. In the beat of a heart. Life, Energy, and the Unity of Nature. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press;2006.
2. Schmidt-Nielsen K. Animal physiology. Adaptation and environment. 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;1997.
3. Brody S, Procter RC. Ashworth US: Growth and development. With Special Refeence to Domestic Animals. XXXIV. Basal Metabolism, Endogenous Nitrogen, Creatinine and Neutral Sulphur Excretions as Functions of Body Weight. University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 1934;220:1–40.
4. Clarke A, Rothery P. Scaling of body temperature in mammals and birds. Funct Ecol. 2008;22:58–67.
5. Morrison Peter R, Ryser Fred A. Weight and body temperature in mammals. Science. 1952;116:231–2.