ArticleOecologia2018
What to eat in a warming world: do increased temperatures necessitate hazardous duty pay?
Article in Oecologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Contemporary climate change affects nearly all biomes, causing shifts in animal distributions and resource availability. Changes in resource selection may allow individuals to offset climatic stress, thereby providing a mechanism for persistence amidst warming conditions. Whereas the role of predation risk in food choice has been studied broadly, the extent to which individuals respond to thermoregulatory risk by changing resource preferences is unclear. We addressed whether individuals compensated for temperature-related reductions in foraging time by altering forage preferences, using the American pika (Ochotona princeps) as a model species. We tested two hypotheses: (1) food-quality hypothesis-individuals exposed to temperature extremes should select higher-quality vegetation in return for accepting a physiologically riskier feeding situation; and (2) food-availability hypothesis-individuals exposed to temperature extremes should prioritize foraging quickly, thereby decreasing selection for higher-quality food. We quantified the composition and quality (% moisture, % nitrogen, and fiber content) of available and harvested vegetation, and deployed a network of temperature sensors to measure in situ conditions for 30 individuals, during July-Sept., 2015. Individuals exposed to more extreme daytime temperatures showed increased selection for high-nitrogen and for low-fiber vegetation, demonstrating strong support for the food-quality hypothesis. By contrast, pikas that experienced warmer conditions did not reduce selection for any of the three vegetation-quality metrics, as predicted by the food-availability hypothesis. By shifting resource-selection patterns, temperature-limited animals may be able to proximately buffer some of the negative effects associated with rapidly warming environments, provided that sufficient resources remain on the landscape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.