4.2 Article

Ecophysiological Influence on Scaling of Aerobic and Anaerobic Metabolism of Pelagic Gonatid Squids

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY
卷 82, 期 5, 页码 419-429

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/591950

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OCE-0526493]
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
  3. FCT [SFRH/BPD/19396/2004]
  4. Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/19396/2004] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the oxygen consumption rates and activity levels of respiratory enzymes involved in the aerobic (citrate synthase [CS]) and anaerobic (octopine dehydrogenase [ODH]) metabolism of gonatid squids (Gonatus onyx and Gonatus pyrus) as a function of body size. The energy expenditure rates of gonatids (ranging from 2.51 to 8.79 mu mol O-2 g(-1) h(-1) at 5 degrees C) are among the highest in Animalia when mass and temperature are taken into account. They reflect the low efficiency of jet propulsion and the animals' active life strategy as diel vertical migrants in the pelagic environment. Both metabolic rate and aerobic muscle potential (CS activity) were size independent across a size range of four orders of magnitude, which may be a result of their unusual body geometric allometry, extensive cutaneous respiration, and decreased energy-saving opportunities at larger sizes. Anaerobic metabolic potential (ODH activity) revealed a shift from positive scaling in juveniles to negative scaling among larger sizes. Juveniles are found in shallow water, where they are more susceptible to visually cued predators and require quicker size-specific escape responses and higher burst swimming capacities. Conversely, adults have reduced requirements for predator/prey interactions in the light-limited deep sea. Anaerobic metabolic scaling reflects an adaptive response to the changing physical and ecological demands across a depth gradient during this species's ontogenetic vertical migration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据