It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The diets of the eight species of ursids range from carnivory (e.g., polar bears, Ursus maritimus) to insectivory (e.g., sloth bears, Melursus ursinus), omnivory (e.g., brown bears, U. arctos), and herbivory (e.g., giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Dietary energy availability ranges from the high-fat, highly digestible, calorically dense diet of polar bears (~ 6.4 kcal digestible energy/g fresh weight) to the high-fiber, poorly digestible, calorically restricted diet (~ 0.7) of giant pandas. Thus, ursids provide the opportunity to examine the extent to which dietary energy drives evolution of energy metabolism in a closely related group of animals. We measured the daily energy expenditure (DEE) of captive brown bears in a relatively large, zoo-type enclosure and compared those values to previously published results on captive brown bears, captive and free-ranging polar bears, and captive and free-ranging giant pandas. We found that all three species have similar mass-specific DEE when travel distances and energy intake are normalized even though their diets differ dramatically and phylogenetic lineages are separated by millions of years. For giant pandas, the ability to engage in low-cost stationary foraging relative to more wide-ranging bears likely provided the necessary energy savings to become bamboo specialists without greatly altering their metabolic rate.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Washington State University, School of Biological Sciences, Pullman, USA (GRID:grid.30064.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 6568)
2 U. S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, USA (GRID:grid.30064.31)
3 Texas A&M University, Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, College Station, USA (GRID:grid.264756.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4687 2082)
4 U. S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, USA (GRID:grid.264756.4)
5 Washington State University, School of Biological Sciences, Pullman, USA (GRID:grid.30064.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 6568); Washington State University, School of the Environment, Pullman, USA (GRID:grid.30064.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2157 6568)