4.2 Article

Metabolic and organ mass responses to selection for high growth rates in the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus)

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 237-248

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/316729

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolutionary hypotheses suggest that higher rates of postembryonic development in birds should either lower the resting metabolic rate (RMR) in a trade-off between the costs of growth and maintenance or increase RMR because of a buildup of metabolic machinery. Furthermore, some suggest that higher rates of postembryonic development in birds should reduce peak metabolic rate (PMR) through delayed tissue maturation and/or an increased energy allocation to organ growth. We studied this by comparing metabolic rates and organ sizes of fast-growing meat-type chickens (broilers) with those of birds from a laying strain, which grow much slower. During the first week of life, despite growing six times faster, the RMR of the broiler chickens was lower than that of birds of the laying strain. The difference between strains in RMR disappeared thereafter, even though broilers continued to grow twice as fast as layers. The differences between strains in growth rate during the first week after hatching were not reflected in similar differences in the relative masses of the heart, liver, and small intestine. However, broilers had heavier intestines once they reached a body mass of 80 g. In contrast, broilers had relatively smaller brains than did layers. There was a positive correlation, over both strains, between RMR and the masses of leg muscles, intestine, and liver. Furthermore, despite delayed maturation of muscle tissue, broilers exhibited significantly higher PMR. We hypothesize that a balance between the larger relative muscle mass but lower muscle maturation level explains this high PMR. Another correlation, between leg muscle mass and PMR, partly explained the positive correlation between RMR and PMR.

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