Search for: All records

Abstract Females and males can exhibit striking differences in body size, relative trait size, physiology, and behavior. As a consequence, the sexes can have very different rates of whole-body energy use, or converge on similar rates through different physiological mechanisms. Yet many studies that measure the relationship between metabolic rate and body size only pay attention to a single sex (more often males), or do not distinguish between sexes. We present four reasons why explicit attention to energy-use between the sexes can yield insight into the physiological mechanisms that shape broader patterns of metabolic scaling in nature. First, the sexes often differ considerably in their relative investment in reproduction, which shapes much of life-history and rates of energy use. Second, males and females share a majority of their genome but may experience different selective pressures. Sex-specific energy profiles can reveal how the energetic needs of individuals are met despite the challenge of within-species genetic constraints. Third, sexual selection often pushes growth and behavior to physiological extremes. Exaggerated sexually selected traits are often most prominent in one sex, can comprise up to 50% of body mass, and thus provide opportunities to uncover energetic constraints of trait growth and maintenance. Finally, sex-differences in behavior such as mating-displays, long-distance dispersal, and courtship can lead to drastically different energy allocation among the sexes; the physiology to support this behavior can shape patterns of metabolic scaling. The mechanisms underlying metabolic scaling in females, males, and hermaphroditic animals can provide opportunities to develop testable predictions that enhance our understanding of energetic scaling patterns in nature. 

Abstract When individuals engage in fights with conspecifics over access to resources, injuries can occur. Most theoretical models suggest that the costs associated with these injuries should influence an individual’s decision to retreat from a fight. Thus, damage from intraspecific combat is frequently noted and quantified. However, the fitness-related costs associated with this damage are not. Quantifying the cost of fighting-related damage is important because most theoretical models assume that it is the cost associated with the damage (not the damage itself) that should influence an individual’s decision to retreat. Here, we quantified the cost of fighting-related injuries in the giant mesquite bug, Thasus neocalifornicus. We demonstrate that experimentally simulated fighting injuries result in metabolic costs and costs to flight performance. We also show that flight costs are more severe when the injuries are larger. Overall, our results provide empirical support for the fundamental assumption that damage acquired during intraspecific combat is costly. 

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.