Changes in Body Surface Temperature Play an Underappreciated Role in the Avian Immune Response

Tapper, Simon; Tabh, Josh; Tattersall, Glenn J.; Burness, Gary

doi:10.1086/718410

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These measurements, though presumably providing accurate information on core temperature (at least in small-bodied species), have also been reported to cause stress ( McKechnie et al, 2016 ) and SIH ( Bouwknecht et al, 2007 ). Subcutaneous implants have been used widely over the last decade or so ( Wacker et al, 2012 ; Nord et al, 2013 ; Sköld-Chiriac et al, 2015 ; Oswald et al, 2018 ; Andreasson et al, 2020a , c ; Nilsson et al, 2020 ; Tapper et al, 2020a , b , 2021 , 2022 ) and are typically perceived as minimally invasive, but will not always reflect core temperature unless calibrated ( Nord et al, 2013 ; Sköld-Chiriac et al, 2015 ; but see Oswald et al, 2018 ). Other studies have measured skin temperature by cutaneous thermistors or thermocouples ( Hiebert, 1991 ; Bech et al, 1997 ; Nord et al, 2016 , 2020 ; Nord and Folkow, 2018 , 2019 ) – measurements that may be more affected by ambient conditions because of the peripheral location of the sensor (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring body temperature in birds – the effects of sensor type and placement on estimated temperature and metabolic rate

Andreasson,

Rostedt,

Nord

2023

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several methods are routinely used to measure avian body temperature, but different methods vary in invasiveness. This may cause stress-induced increases in temperature and/or metabolic rate and, hence, overestimation of both parameters. Choosing an adequate temperature measurement-method is therefore key to accurately characterizing an animal's thermal and metabolic phenotype. Using great tits (Parus major Linnaeus) and four common methods with different levels of invasiveness (intraperitoneal, cloacal, subcutaneous, cutaneous), we evaluated the preciseness of body temperature measurements and effects on resting metabolic rate (RMR) over a 40°C range of ambient temperatures. Neither method caused over- or underestimation of RMR compared to un-instrumented birds and body or skin temperature estimates did not differ between methods in thermoneutrality. However, skin temperature was lower compared to all other methods below thermoneutrality. These results provide empirical guidance for future research that aims to measure body temperature and metabolic rate in small bird models.

show abstract