So, to clarify, you're asking simply for a paper that shows that the Python regius in that study had an increase in either or both nutrient absorption or bone density?
The reason I ask is because that's different than showing that the species has been shown to "benefit" -- that is, have positive outcomes overall. For one thing, it would have to be true that nutrient absorption or bone density are in some way sub-par in the control group. To take an analogous case in humans, fructose intake increases nutrient absorption, but increasing one's fructose intake would not be expected to carry 'benefit' in the vast majority of cases. This leap from 'measured effect' to 'benefit' is noted in the abstract of this study of UVB provision to P. bivittatus: "Answering whether these elevated levels have health benefits for Burmese pythons (and possibly other snake species) requires further studies."
To say that P. regius "benefits" from UVB, it would also have to be true that whatever positive effects occur, those are not outweighed by negative effects. That would take much more than one study, or even a small handful.
Anyway, here's a paper that found no physiological effects from UVB provision to Python regius:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Python_regius
The authors of this paper note that the study had some shortcomings from a research standpoint that may have led to the negative results. It is worth noting that if effects of any research are to be extrapolated to captive hobby conditions, there should be demonstrated a strong effect that's relatively independent of extraneous variables (since none of our care holds up to experimental design requirements). That is to say, this study may well be an accurate demonstration of what typical keepers might expect for results.
Reply With Quote