Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24907372›Full record

ArticleBiology open2014

The energy costs of wading in water.

Lewis G Halsey, Christopher J Tyler, Algis V Kuliukas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lewis G HalseyUniversity of Roehampton, Holybourne Avenue, London SW15 4JD, UK l.halsey@roehampton.ac.uk.
Christopher J TylerUniversity of Roehampton, Holybourne Avenue, London SW15 4JD, UK.
Algis V KuliukasUniversity of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
University of Roehampton · GBUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies measuring the energy costs of wading in water have been limited to higher walking speeds in straight lines, in deep water. However, much foraging in water, by both humans and other primates, is conducted in the shallows and at low speeds of locomotion that include elements of turning, as befits searching for cryptic or hidden foods within a patch. The present study brings together data on the rate of oxygen consumption during wading by humans from previous studies, and augments these with new data for wading in shallower depths, with slower and more tortuous walking, to obtain a better understanding both of the absolute costs of wading in typical scenarios of aquatic foraging and of how the cost of wading varies as a function of water depth and speed of locomotion. Previous and present data indicate that, at low speeds, wading has a similar energetic cost to walking on land, particularly at lower water depths, and only at higher speeds is the cost of wading noticeably more expensive than when water is absent. This is probably explained by the relatively small volume of water that must be displaced during locomotion in shallow waters coupled with the compensating support to the limbs that the water affords. The support to the limbs/body provided by water is discussed further, in the context of bipedal locomotion by non-human primates during wading.

Indexed as

BipedalDouglas bagMetabolic rateTurningWadingWalking

Identifiers

PMID24907372
PMCPMC4154292
OpenAlexW2130452794

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.