Cargando…
Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders?
Whether basal metabolic rate‐body mass scaling relationships have a single exponent is highly discussed, and also the correct statistical model to establish relationships. Here, we aimed (1) to identify statistically best scaling models for 17 mammalian orders, Marsupialia, Eutheria and all mammals,...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5167101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28031788 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2555 |
_version_ | 1782483132269723648 |
---|---|
author | Griebeler, Eva Maria Werner, Jan |
author_facet | Griebeler, Eva Maria Werner, Jan |
author_sort | Griebeler, Eva Maria |
collection | PubMed |
description | Whether basal metabolic rate‐body mass scaling relationships have a single exponent is highly discussed, and also the correct statistical model to establish relationships. Here, we aimed (1) to identify statistically best scaling models for 17 mammalian orders, Marsupialia, Eutheria and all mammals, and (2) thereby to prove whether correcting for differences in species’ body temperature and their shared evolutionary history improves models and their biological interpretability. We used the large dataset from Sieg et al. (The American Naturalist 174, 2009, 720) providing species’ body mass (BM), basal metabolic rate (BMR) and body temperature (T). We applied different statistical approaches to identify the best scaling model for each taxon: ordinary least squares regression analysis (OLS) and phylogenetically informed analysis (PGLS), both without and with controlling for T. Under each approach, we tested linear equations (log‐log‐transformed data) estimating scaling exponents and normalization constants, and such with a variable normalization constant and a fixed exponent of either ⅔ or ¾, and also a curvature. Only under temperature correction, an additional variable coefficient modeled the influence of T on BMR. Except for Pholidata and Carnivora, in all taxa studied linear models were clearly supported over a curvature by AICc. They indicated no single exponent at the level of orders or at higher taxonomic levels. The majority of all best models corrected for phylogeny, whereas only half of them included T. When correcting for T, the mathematically expected correlation between the exponent (b) and the normalization constant (a) in the standard scaling model y = a x (b) was removed, but the normalization constant and temperature coefficient still correlated strongly. In six taxa, T and BM correlated positively or negatively. All this hampers a disentangling of the effect of BM, T and other factors on BMR, and an interpretation of linear BMR‐BM scaling relationships in the mammalian taxa studied. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5167101 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51671012016-12-28 Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? Griebeler, Eva Maria Werner, Jan Ecol Evol Original Research Whether basal metabolic rate‐body mass scaling relationships have a single exponent is highly discussed, and also the correct statistical model to establish relationships. Here, we aimed (1) to identify statistically best scaling models for 17 mammalian orders, Marsupialia, Eutheria and all mammals, and (2) thereby to prove whether correcting for differences in species’ body temperature and their shared evolutionary history improves models and their biological interpretability. We used the large dataset from Sieg et al. (The American Naturalist 174, 2009, 720) providing species’ body mass (BM), basal metabolic rate (BMR) and body temperature (T). We applied different statistical approaches to identify the best scaling model for each taxon: ordinary least squares regression analysis (OLS) and phylogenetically informed analysis (PGLS), both without and with controlling for T. Under each approach, we tested linear equations (log‐log‐transformed data) estimating scaling exponents and normalization constants, and such with a variable normalization constant and a fixed exponent of either ⅔ or ¾, and also a curvature. Only under temperature correction, an additional variable coefficient modeled the influence of T on BMR. Except for Pholidata and Carnivora, in all taxa studied linear models were clearly supported over a curvature by AICc. They indicated no single exponent at the level of orders or at higher taxonomic levels. The majority of all best models corrected for phylogeny, whereas only half of them included T. When correcting for T, the mathematically expected correlation between the exponent (b) and the normalization constant (a) in the standard scaling model y = a x (b) was removed, but the normalization constant and temperature coefficient still correlated strongly. In six taxa, T and BM correlated positively or negatively. All this hampers a disentangling of the effect of BM, T and other factors on BMR, and an interpretation of linear BMR‐BM scaling relationships in the mammalian taxa studied. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5167101/ /pubmed/28031788 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2555 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Griebeler, Eva Maria Werner, Jan Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
title | Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
title_full | Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
title_fullStr | Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
title_full_unstemmed | Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
title_short | Mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
title_sort | mass, phylogeny, and temperature are sufficient to explain differences in metabolic scaling across mammalian orders? |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5167101/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28031788 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2555 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT griebelerevamaria massphylogenyandtemperaturearesufficienttoexplaindifferencesinmetabolicscalingacrossmammalianorders AT wernerjan massphylogenyandtemperaturearesufficienttoexplaindifferencesinmetabolicscalingacrossmammalianorders |