4.4 Review

Allometric estimation of metabolic rates in animals

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.10.004

关键词

Scaling; Metabolism; Mammals; Independent contrasts; Reduced major axis; Ordinary least squares

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0987626]
  2. Australian Research Council [DP0987626] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between body mass (M) and metabolic rate (MR) typically accounts for most (> 90%) of the inter-specific variation in MR. As such, when measurement of a species of interest is not possible, its MR can often be predicted using M. However, choosing an appropriate relationship to make such predictions is critical, and the choice is complicated by ongoing debate about the structure of the relationship between M and MR. The present study examines a range of methods including ordinary least squares (OLS), reduced major axis (RMA), and phylogenetically-informed (PI) approaches for estimating log(MR) from log(M), as well as non-linear approaches for estimating the relationship between MR and M without the need for log-transformation. Using data for the basal metabolic rates of mammals, it is shown that RMA regression overestimates the scaling exponent of MR (b, where MR = aM(b)). suggesting that OLS regression is appropriate for these data. PI approaches are preferred over non-PI ones, and the best estimates of log(MR) are obtained by including information on body temperature, climate, habitat, island endemism, and use of torpor in addition to log(M). However, the use of log-transformed data introduces bias into estimates of MR, while the use of non-linear regression underestimates MR for small mammals. This suggests that no single relationship is appropriate for describing the relationship between MR and M for all mammals, and that relationships for more narrow taxonomic groups or body mass ranges should be used when predicting MR from M. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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