Periods of Nutritional Stress in the Annual Cycles of Endotherms: Fact or Fiction?

King, James R.; Murphy, Mary E.

doi:10.1093/icb/25.4.955

Cited by 194 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nutrients and energy beyond maintenance levels are required during molt (King and Murphy 1992); however, current evidence suggests that molt is not energetically stressful (Ankney 1979, King and Murphy 1985, Brown and Bryant 1996. Molting seaducks can take two possible approaches to meet these nutritional demands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time-Activity Budgets of Harlequin Ducks Molting in the Gannet Islands, Labrador

Adams

Robertson²,

Jones

2000

The Condor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time-Activity Budgets of Harlequin Ducks Molting in the Gannet Islands, Labrador

Adams

Robertson²,

Jones

2000

The Condor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Compensatory mechanisms reduce the impact of nutritional stress on free-living organisms [i.e. small mammals (King and Murphy, 1985)]. …”

Section: Consequences Of Foraging Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Female mice respond differently to costly foraging versus food restriction

Schubert

Vaanholt

Stavasius

et al. 2008

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYExperimental manipulation of foraging costs per food reward can be used to study the plasticity of physiological systems involved in energy metabolism. This approach is useful for understanding adaptations to natural variation in food availability. Earlier studies have shown that animals foraging on a fixed reward schedule decrease energy intake and expenditure. However, the extent to which these changes depend on decreased food intake or increased foraging costs per se has never been tested. We manipulated foraging costs per food reward in female Hsd:ICR(CD-1) laboratory mice, comparing animals faced with low (L) and high (H) foraging costs to non-foraging animals receiving a food restriction (R) matched to the intake of H animals. Mice in the H group ran as much as L mice did but ate significantly less. They concurrently reduced daily energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate, decreased the size of major metabolic organs and utilized body fat stores; mass-specific resting metabolic rate did not differ between groups. We found evidence that these alterations in energy balance may carry fitness costs. As a secondary response to our experimental treatment, H females and, eventually, some R females ceased to show signs of estrous cyclicity. Surprisingly, results of an immune challenge with keyhole limpet hemocyanin showed that primary immune response did not differ between L and H groups, and was actually higher in R mice. Our results demonstrate that high foraging costs per se -the combination of high activity and low food intake -have pronounced physiological effects in female mice.

show abstract

“…The second potential explanation involves phenotypic plasticity to compensate for the costs of organ damage (King and Murphy, 1985). With respect to the a priori predictions for S. douthitti-infected deer mice, it appears that mice may largely compensate for the costs of infection through plasticity in physiology and/or morphology, leading to few alterations in metabolic measures.…”

Section: The Journal Of Experimental Biology Schistosome Infection Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plasticity can occur at many levels, from physiology and morphology to behavior and life history (King and Murphy, 1985). Organ morphology, for example, can be highly flexible in many animals (Piersma and Lindström, 1997;Starck, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Schistosome infection in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus):impacts on host physiology, behavior and energetics

Schwanz

2006

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phenotypic plasticity is an important means through which animals respond to unpredictability and stressors in the environment (Fordyce, 2006;Schlichting and Pigliucci, 1998). Plasticity can occur at many levels, from physiology and morphology to behavior and life history (King and Murphy, 1985). Organ morphology, for example, can be highly flexible in many animals (Piersma and Lindström, 1997;Starck, 1999). The size of gastrointestinal (GI) tract organs changes with energetic and functional demands, increasing during lactation and cold exposure in rodents, decreasing in preparation for migration in birds, and changing over active and hibernation seasons in lizards (e.g. Hammond et al., 1994;Piersma and Lindström, 1997;Tracy and Diamond, 2005). Similarly, metabolic rates can change with season and ambient temperature (e.g. Hill, 1983).Parasites represent an important stressor for many animals, and their effects on host phenotypes can include direct pathologies and host plasticity. For example, parasitism can cause liver and intestinal damage, anemia and increased thermal conductance (Booth et al., 1993;Holmes and Zohar, 1990;Meagher, 1998;Schall et al., 1982;Tocque, 1993;Wiger, 1977). Parasitism can also lead to changes in the energetics and performance of animals, including reduced feeding and activity, impaired anti-predator and competitive behavior, and altered metabolic rates (Arneberg et al., 1996;Booth et al., 1993;Cunningham et al., 1994;Freeland, 1981;Poirier et al., 1995;Rau, 1983a;Rau, 1983b;Rau and Putter, 1984;Schall et al., 1982;Symons, 1985). Finally, parasitized animals may show shifts in organ size and body tissue composition (Kristan, 2002;Kristan and Hammond, 2000;Kristan and Hammond, 2001;Tocque, 1993). Although it is difficult to distinguish between direct parasite impact and host compensation, host alterations in some systems appear to represent phenotypic plasticity to minimize the fitness costs of infection (e.g. Booth et al., 1993;Kristan and Hammond, 2001;Podesta and Mettrick, 1976). Indeed, parasitism can have strong, negative impacts on host fitness through decreases in survival and reproduction (e.g. Crews and Yoshino, 1989;Fuller and Blaustein, 1996;Goater and Ward, 1992;Neuhaus, 2003;Zuk, 1987). The host-parasite relationship, therefore, provides an interesting and ecologically important stage on which to examine phenotypic plasticity and fitness consequences of stressors. Additionally, understanding the phenotypic response of individual hosts is imperative for understanding populationlevel effects and coevolution between hosts and parasites Animals routinely encounter environmental stressors and may employ phenotypic plasticity to compensate for the costs of these perturbations. Parasites represent an ecologically important stressor for animals, which may induce host plasticity. The present study examined the effects of a trematode parasite, Schistosomatium douthitti, on deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) physiology, behavior and energetics. Measures were taken to assess direct pa...

show abstract

Periods of Nutritional Stress in the Annual Cycles of Endotherms: Fact or Fiction?

Cited by 194 publications

References 40 publications

Time-Activity Budgets of Harlequin Ducks Molting in the Gannet Islands, Labrador

Time-Activity Budgets of Harlequin Ducks Molting in the Gannet Islands, Labrador

Female mice respond differently to costly foraging versus food restriction

Schistosome infection in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus):impacts on host physiology, behavior and energetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About