4.8 Article

Metabolic rate and environmental productivity: Well-provisioned animals evolved to run and idle fast

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.221456698

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [1-F32-DK09992-01, F32 DK009991] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 14772] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even among vertebrate species of the same body mass and higher-level taxonomic group, metabolic rates exhibit substantial differences, for which diverse explanatory factors-such as dietary energy content, latitude, altitude, temperature, and rainfall-have been postulated. A unifying underlying factor could be food availability, in turn controlled by net primary productivity (NPP) of the animal's natural environment. We tested this possibility by studying five North American species of Peromyscus mice, all of them similar in diet (generalist omnivores) and in gut morphology but differing by factors of up to 13 in NPP of their habitat of origin. We maintained breeding colonies of all five species in the laboratory under identical conditions and consuming identical diets. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) and daily ad libitum food intake both increased with NPP, which explained 88% and 90% of their variances, respectively. High-metabolism mouse species from high-NPP environments were behaviorally more active than were low-metabolism species from low-NPP environments. Intestinal glucose uptake capacity also increased with NPP (and with BMR and food intake), because species of high-NPP environments had larger small intestines and higher uptake rates. For metabolic rates of our five species, the driving environmental variable is environmental productivity itself (and hence food availability), rather than temporal variability of productivity. Thus, species that have evolved in the presence of abundant food run their metabolism fast, both while active and while idling, as compared with species of less productive environments, even when all species are given access to unlimited food.

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

4.8
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