Cargando…
When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates
The accumulation of body mass, as growth, is fundamental to all organisms. Being able to understand which model(s) best describe this growth trajectory, both empirically and ultimately mechanistically, is an important challenge. A variety of equations have been proposed to describe growth during ont...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757982/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23945691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1546 |
_version_ | 1782282301553508352 |
---|---|
author | Hirst, Andrew G. Forster, Jack |
author_facet | Hirst, Andrew G. Forster, Jack |
author_sort | Hirst, Andrew G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The accumulation of body mass, as growth, is fundamental to all organisms. Being able to understand which model(s) best describe this growth trajectory, both empirically and ultimately mechanistically, is an important challenge. A variety of equations have been proposed to describe growth during ontogeny. Recently, the West Brown Enquist (WBE) equation, formulated as part of the metabolic theory of ecology, has been proposed as a universal model of growth. This equation has the advantage of having a biological basis, but its ability to describe invertebrate growth patterns has not been well tested against other, more simple models. In this study, we collected data for 58 species of marine invertebrate from 15 different taxa. The data were fitted to three growth models (power, exponential and WBE), and their abilities were examined using an information theoretic approach. Using Akaike information criteria, we found changes in mass through time to fit an exponential equation form best (in approx. 73% of cases). The WBE model predominantly overestimates body size in early ontogeny and underestimates it in later ontogeny; it was the best fit in approximately 14% of cases. The exponential model described growth well in nine taxa, whereas the WBE described growth well in one of the 15 taxa, the Amphipoda. Although the WBE has the advantage of being developed with an underlying proximate mechanism, it provides a poor fit to the majority of marine invertebrates examined here, including species with determinate and indeterminate growth types. In the original formulation of the WBE model, it was tested almost exclusively against vertebrates, to which it fitted well; the model does not however appear to be universal given its poor ability to describe growth in benthic or pelagic marine invertebrates. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3757982 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37579822013-10-07 When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates Hirst, Andrew G. Forster, Jack Proc Biol Sci Research Articles The accumulation of body mass, as growth, is fundamental to all organisms. Being able to understand which model(s) best describe this growth trajectory, both empirically and ultimately mechanistically, is an important challenge. A variety of equations have been proposed to describe growth during ontogeny. Recently, the West Brown Enquist (WBE) equation, formulated as part of the metabolic theory of ecology, has been proposed as a universal model of growth. This equation has the advantage of having a biological basis, but its ability to describe invertebrate growth patterns has not been well tested against other, more simple models. In this study, we collected data for 58 species of marine invertebrate from 15 different taxa. The data were fitted to three growth models (power, exponential and WBE), and their abilities were examined using an information theoretic approach. Using Akaike information criteria, we found changes in mass through time to fit an exponential equation form best (in approx. 73% of cases). The WBE model predominantly overestimates body size in early ontogeny and underestimates it in later ontogeny; it was the best fit in approximately 14% of cases. The exponential model described growth well in nine taxa, whereas the WBE described growth well in one of the 15 taxa, the Amphipoda. Although the WBE has the advantage of being developed with an underlying proximate mechanism, it provides a poor fit to the majority of marine invertebrates examined here, including species with determinate and indeterminate growth types. In the original formulation of the WBE model, it was tested almost exclusively against vertebrates, to which it fitted well; the model does not however appear to be universal given its poor ability to describe growth in benthic or pelagic marine invertebrates. The Royal Society 2013-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3757982/ /pubmed/23945691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1546 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ © 2013 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Hirst, Andrew G. Forster, Jack When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
title | When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
title_full | When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
title_fullStr | When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
title_full_unstemmed | When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
title_short | When growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
title_sort | when growth models are not universal: evidence from marine invertebrates |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757982/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23945691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1546 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hirstandrewg whengrowthmodelsarenotuniversalevidencefrommarineinvertebrates AT forsterjack whengrowthmodelsarenotuniversalevidencefrommarineinvertebrates |