QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online April 26, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 1611-1619 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01501

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by White, C. R. Articles by Seymour, R. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by White, C. R. Articles by Seymour, R. S.

Allometric scaling of mammalian metabolism

Craig R. White^* and Roger S. Seymour

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005 Australia

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Relationship between the percentage of large herbivores in a basal metabolic rate (BMR) data set and the coefficient of variation (CV, the standard deviation of residuals from a ln-ln allometric relationship; Garland, 1984) and scaling exponent (shown ±95% CI) of the allometric relationship between BMR and body mass. Both correlations are significant (CV: r=0.92, P<0.0001; scaling exponent: r=0.85, P=0.0003). Data sources are provided in Table 1.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Relationship between mean retention time of particles in the digestive tract (MRT, h) and body mass (Mb, g) for a range of herbivorous species that ferment in the cecum (unfilled triangles), foregut (filled circles), or colon (filled triangles). Solid line is the allometric relationship between MRT and Mb (MRT=7.3Mb0.17±0.05 [95% CI], r2=0.43, N=60). Short broken line represents the earliest appearance of particles (=MRT/3), long broken line represents the final appearance of particles (=4xMRT). Filled squares, cecum fermenting species not included in the regression analysis because standardised residuals were more than 2 S.D. from the regression mean; unfilled circle, a foregut fermenting species excluded for the same reason. Insectivores, carnivores and piscivores (unfilled squares) are included for comparison, and have MRT values 2-13 times shorter than that predicted for herbivores of similar size. Data from Krockenberger and Bryden (1994), Morris et al. (1994) Stevens and Hume (1995), Caton et al. (1996), Comport and Hume (1998), Bodley et al. (1999), Campbell et al. (1999), McClelland et al. (1999), Felicetti et al. (2000), Gibson and Hume (2000), Hume et al. (2000), Pei et al. (2001).

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Relationship between peak postfeeding resting metabolic rate (RMRpp, ml O2 h-1) and body mass (Mb, g). RMRpp is the highest metabolic rate observed in resting animals following feeding and is related to Mb according to RMRpp=7.91Mb0.75±0.03 (95% CI), r2=0.99, N=19. Data from Lusk (1915), Brody (1945), Gallivan and Ronald (1981), Costa and Kooyman (1984), Diamond et al. (1985), McDonald et al. (1988), MacArthur and Campbell (1994), Markussen et al. (1994), Rosen and Trites (1997), Sherwood (1997), Clements et al. (1998), Campbell et al. (1999).

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Relationship between basal metabolic rate (BMR, ml O2 h-1) and body mass (Mb, g). BMR=3.98Mb0.686±0.014 (95% CI), r2=0.94, N=571. Data were selected according to McNab (1997) and taken from White and Seymour (2003). Lineages for which basal conditions were unlikely to be achieved (large herbivores, Macropodidae, Lagomorpha, and Soricidae) were excluded for reasons discussed in the text.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationship between body mass (Mb, g) and standard metabolic rate (SMR, ml O2 h-1) for (A) euthermic and (B) hypothermic mammals, normalised to a body temperature of 36.2°C (see text for details): a Q10 of 2.8 was used for euthermic mammals, 2.4 for mammals in daily torpor (filled circles) and 2.2 for hibernating ones (unfilled circles). Equations of the regression lines: euthermic mammal SMR=4.14Mb0.675±0.013 (95% CI), r2=0.96, N=469; torpid mammal (solid line) SMR=4.81Mb0.67±0.1, r2=0.86, N=30; hibernating mammal (broken line) SMR=0.669Mb0.87±0.08, r2=0.90, N=59. Data for euthermic mammals from White and Seymour (2003), data for hypothermic ones from Geiser (1988).

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Relationship between body mass (Mb, g) and maximum metabolic rate (MMR, ml O2 h-1) induced either by exercise (A, MMRe) or exposure to cold in a He-O2 atmosphere (B, MMRc). Equations of the regression lines: MMRe=16.7Mb0.87±0.05 (95% CI), r2=0.98, N=36; MMRc=31.6=Mb0.65±0.05, r2=0.92, N=70. MMRe data from Seeherman et al. (1981), Taylor et al. (1981), Koteja (1987). MMRc data from Hinds and Rice-Warner (1992), Hinds et al. (1993), Chappell and Dawson (1994), Holloway and Geiser (2001), Nespolo et al. (2001).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Relationship between the scaling exponent (± 95% CI) of various mammalian metabolic rates (filled symbols: S, standard; B, basal; T, thermoneutral resting; P, peak post-feeding; F, field; E, exercise induced maximum) and the elevation of the allometric relationship at a mass of 21 g (modal mammalian body mass from Blackburn and Gaston, 1998). The relationship is significant (r=0.97, P=0.001), with the data for cold-induced maximum metabolic rate (C, unfilled symbol) excluded.