Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24899764›Full record

ArticleSleep2014

Ecology and neurophysiology of sleep in two wild sloth species.

Bryson Voirin, Madeleine F Scriba, Dolores Martinez-Gonzalez, Alexei L Vyssotski, Martin Wikelski, Niels C Rattenborg

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Sleep, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Revitalizing the "biology" in "chronobiology".Npj biological timing and sleep · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A brief introduction to the analysis of time-series data from biologging studies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  11. Sleep in two free-roaming blue wildebeest (IBRO neuroscience reports · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Sleep inFrontiers in physiology · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Sleep research goes wild: new methods and approaches to investigate the ecology, evolution and functions of sleep.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Bryson VoirinAvian Sleep Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology - Seewiesen, Seewiesen, Germany ; Department of Migration and Immuno-Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology - Radolfzell, Radolfzell, Germany ; Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute - Panama, Balboa, Ancón, Panama.
Madeleine F ScribaAvian Sleep Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology - Seewiesen, Seewiesen, Germany ; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dolores Martinez-GonzalezAvian Sleep Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology - Seewiesen, Seewiesen, Germany.
Alexei L VyssotskiInstitute of Neuroinformatics, University of Zurich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland.
Martin WikelskiDepartment of Migration and Immuno-Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology - Radolfzell, Radolfzell, Germany ; Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Niels C RattenborgAvian Sleep Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology - Seewiesen, Seewiesen, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Ornithology · DESIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics · CHUniversity of Konstanz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesInterspecific variation in sleep measured in captivity correlates with various physiological and environmental factors, including estimates of predation risk in the wild. However, it remains unclear whether prior comparative studies have been confounded by the captive recording environment. Herein we examine the effect of predation pressure on sleep in sloths living in the wild.

designComparison of two closely related sloth species, one exposed to predation and one free from predation.

settingPanamanian mainland rainforest (predators present) and island mangrove (predators absent).

participantsMainland (Bradypus variegatus, five males and four females) and island (Bradypus pygmaeus, six males) sloths.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND

resultsElectroencephalographic (EEG) and electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded using a miniature data logger. Although both species spent between 9 and 10 h per day sleeping, the mainland sloths showed a preference for sleeping at night, whereas island sloths showed no preference for sleeping during the day or night. Standardized EEG activity during nonrapid eye movement (NREM) sleep showed lower low-frequency power, and increased spindle and higher frequency power in island sloths when compared to mainland sloths.

conclusionsIn sloths sleeping in the wild, predation pressure influenced the timing of sleep, but not the amount of time spent asleep. The preference for sleeping at night in mainland sloths may be a strategy to avoid detection by nocturnal cats. The pronounced differences in the NREM sleep EEG spectrum remain unexplained, but might be related to genetic or environmental factors.

Indexed as

Predatory BehaviorAnimalsAnimals, WildArousalBenzodiazepinesDietElectroencephalographyElectromyographyFelidaeFemaleIslandsMalePanamaRainforestSleepSleep, REMBenzodiazepinesBenzodiazepineEEGNREM sleepphasingpredationREM sleepslothspindlewild

Identifiers

PMID24899764
PMCPMC4044746
OpenAlexW2089064988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.