Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 337

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

One for all and all for one: the energetic benefits of huddling in endotherms

Gilbert, Caroline, McCafferty, Dominic, Le Maho, Yvon, Martrette, Jean‐Marc, Giroud, Sylvain, Blanc, Stéphane, Ancel, André·2010·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Huddling can be defined as “an active and close aggregation of animals”. It is a cooperative group behaviour, permitting individuals involved in social thermoregulation to minimize heat loss and thereby lower their energy expenditure, and possibly allowing them to reallocate the saved energy to other functions such as growth or reproduction. Huddling is especially important in the case of animals faced with high heat loss due to a high surface‐to‐volume ratio, poor insulation, or living in cold environments. Although numerous experimental studies have focused on the huddling behaviour of a wide range of species, to our knowledge, this is the first attempt to review the various implications of this widely used behavioural strategy. Huddling allows individuals to maximise energy savings by (1) decreasing their cold‐exposed body surface area, (2) reducing their heat loss through warming of ambient temperatures surrounding the group, and (3) eventually lowering their body temperature through physiological processes. Huddling provides substantial energy savings and is estimated to reduce energy expenditure by between 6 and 53%. Broad variations in the energetic benefits of huddling depend on the number of individuals and species involved in huddles, the ambient temperatures to which individuals are exposed and the density of the aggregations. It has been shown that huddling individuals have increased survival, a lower food intake, a decreased body mass loss, increased growth rate, reduced water loss, and/or a more constant body temperature together with a significant reduction in metabolic rate. Though huddling has been studied widely, this review reveals the intricacies of this adaptive behaviour.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00115.x

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 83 references

Cited by

See all 337

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, C., McCafferty, D., Le Maho, Y., Martrette, J., Giroud, S., Blanc, S., & Ancel, A.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-08
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
545-569
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2035639238
Cited by
337
References
83
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: One for all and all for one: the energetic benefits of huddling in endotherms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00115.x
The paper
Gilbert, C., McCafferty, D., Le Maho, Y., Martrette, J., Giroud, S., Blanc, S., & Ancel, A. (2010). One for all and all for one: the energetic benefits of huddling in endotherms. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00115.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.