Search for: All records

Abstract Metabolic rate (MR) usually changes (scales) out of proportion to body mass (BM) as MR = aBMb, where a is a normalisation constant and b is the scaling exponent that reflects how steep this change is. This scaling relationship is fundamental to biology, but over a century of research has provided little consensus on the value of b, and why it appears to vary among taxa and taxonomic levels. By analysing published data on fish and taking an individual-based approach to metabolic scaling, I show that variation in growth of fish under naturally restricted food availability can explain variation in within-individual (ontogenetic) b for standard (maintenance) metabolic rate (SMR) of brown trout (Salmo trutta), with the fastest growers having the steepest metabolic scaling (b ≈ 1). Moreover, I show that within-individual b can vary much more widely than previously assumed from work on different individuals or different species, from –1 to 1 for SMR among individual brown trout. The negative scaling of SMR for some individuals was caused by reductions in metabolic rate in a food limited environment, likely to maintain positive growth. This resulted in a mean within-individual b for SMR that was significantly lower than the across-individual (“static”) b, a difference that also existed for another species, cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus). Interestingly, the wide variation in ontogenetic b for SMR among individual brown trout did not exist for maximum (active) metabolic rate (MMR) of the same fish, showing that these two key metabolic traits (SMR and MMR) can scale independently of one another. I also show that across-species (“evolutionary”) b for SMR of 134 fishes is significantly steeper (b approaching 1) than the mean ontogenetic b for the brown trout and cunner. Based on these interesting findings, I hypothesise that evolutionary and static metabolic scaling can be systematically different from ontogenetic scaling, and that the steeper evolutionary than ontogenetic scaling for fishes arises as a by-product of natural selection for fast-growing individuals with steep metabolic scaling (b ≈ 1) early in life, where size-selective mortality is high for fishes. I support this by showing that b for SMR tends to increase with natural mortality rates of fish larvae within taxa. 

Abstract Larger animals studied during ontogeny, across populations, or across species, usually have lower mass-specific metabolic rates than smaller animals (hypometric scaling). This pattern is usually observed regardless of physiological state (e.g., basal, resting, field, and maximally active). The scaling of metabolism is usually highly correlated with the scaling of many life-history traits, behaviors, physiological variables, and cellular/molecular properties, making determination of the causation of this pattern challenging. For across-species comparisons of resting and locomoting animals (but less so for across populations or during ontogeny), the mechanisms at the physiological and cellular level are becoming clear. Lower mass-specific metabolic rates of larger species at rest are due to (a) lower contents of expensive tissues (brains, liver, and kidneys), and (b) slower ion leak across membranes at least partially due to membrane composition, with lower ion pump ATPase activities. Lower mass-specific costs of larger species during locomotion are due to lower costs for lower-frequency muscle activity, with slower myosin and Ca++ ATPase activities, and likely more elastic energy storage. The evolutionary explanation(s) for hypometric scaling remain(s) highly controversial. One subset of evolutionary hypotheses relies on constraints on larger animals due to changes in geometry with size; for example, lower surface-to-volume ratios of exchange surfaces may constrain nutrient or heat exchange, or lower cross-sectional areas of muscles and tendons relative to body mass ratios would make larger animals more fragile without compensation. Another subset of hypotheses suggests that hypometric scaling arises from biotic interactions and correlated selection, with larger animals experiencing less selection for mass-specific growth or neurolocomotor performance. An additional third type of explanation comes from population genetics. Larger animals with their lower effective population sizes and subsequent less effective selection relative to drift may have more deleterious mutations, reducing maximal performance and metabolic rates. Resolving the evolutionary explanation for the hypometric scaling of metabolism and associated variables is a major challenge for organismal and evolutionary biology. To aid progress, we identify some variation in terminology use that has impeded cross-field conversations on scaling. We also suggest that promising directions for the field to move forward include (1) studies examining the linkages between ontogenetic, population-level, and cross-species allometries; (2) studies linking scaling to ecological or phylogenetic context; (3) studies that consider multiple, possibly interacting hypotheses; and (4) obtaining better field data for metabolic rates and the life history correlates of metabolic rate such as lifespan, growth rate, and reproduction.