Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
CLASSICS
What drove the evolution of endothermy?
Michael S. Hedrick, Stanley S. Hillman
Journal of Experimental Biology 2016 219: 300-301; doi: 10.1242/jeb.128009
Michael S. Hedrick
California State University, East Bay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: michael.hedrick@csueastbay.edu
Stanley S. Hillman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Michael Hedrick and Stanley Hillman discuss the impact of Albert Bennett and John Ruben's classic paper ‘Endothermy and activity in vertebrates’, published in Science in 1979.

The metabolic production of heat and high, stable body temperatures characteristic of birds and mammals was a major step in the evolution of vertebrate animals; however, the 1979 paper by Albert Bennett and John Ruben (Bennett and Ruben, 1979) represented a fundamental shift in thinking about the problem of the evolution of endothermy. They argued that endothermy based on thermoregulatory considerations alone (e.g. Bogert, 1949; Cowles, 1958) was not the sole selective advantage for endothermy and perhaps not the initial factor for its evolution. Instead, Bennett and Ruben postulated that the evolution of endothermy was directly linked to the selection for high levels of activity sustained by aerobic metabolism.

Endothermy in vertebrates evolved at least twice in the vertebrate lineage – leading to birds and mammals – along separate, but parallel lines from different groups of reptilian ancestors. The advantages of endothermy are well known: the ability to occupy thermal niches that exclude many ectothermic vertebrates, a high degree of thermal independence from environmental temperature, high muscular power output and sustained levels of activity, to name but a few. Endothermy, however, is energetically very expensive and requires a great deal of food, compared with the intake of similarly sized ectotherms, to support high metabolic rates.

In their 1979 paper, Bennett and Ruben discussed how high levels of activity and aerobic metabolism could have contributed to the evolution of endothermy. The low-cost metabolic advantages of an ectothermic lifestyle, such as the increased energy to devote to growth and reproduction, led Bennett and Ruben to argue that it is difficult to see how endothermy could have arisen solely for the benefit of thermoregulation. They then detailed how oxygen consumption increases as physical activity increases and pointed out that there appears a ‘consistent linkage between resting and maximal levels of oxygen consumption in vertebrates’ with a ratio of maximal to rest that is generally between 5 and 10, although they acknowledged that there was too little comparative information available at the time to determine what generally limits maximal metabolism of vertebrates.

Bennett and Ruben then presented how animals with higher aerobic capacity can attain and sustain higher speeds. Endotherms sustain exertions over a wider range of speeds than ectotherms, which resort to anaerobic metabolism to fuel activity at high speeds, and Bennett and Ruben pointed out that ‘the ectothermic ancestors of the endothermic groups would likewise have been subject to these behavioural constraints of low stamina’.

After establishing the significance of the increased aerobic scope of endotherms, Bennett and Ruben stated their belief that selection for increased stamina – with the consequent increase in resting metabolism – was a significant factor in the evolution of endothermy. They then listed many additional evolutionary benefits that might accrue from increased stamina, including territory defence and greater foraging capacity, before suggesting that increased aerobic capacity during activity may in turn require the evolution of a relatively high body temperature. However, they concluded by stating that the benefits of endothermy do not span all measures of performance, pointing out that the ectotherms’ increased capacity for anaerobic metabolism provides them with a greater capacity for burst activity, manifested in reptiles that outsprint mammals of similar sizes.

This paper personally shaped for us an ongoing interest in understanding what limits aerobic metabolism of vertebrates from a physiological perspective, starting in the early 1980s at Portland State University when Hillman was an Assistant Professor and Hedrick was a Master's student (e.g. Hillman et al., 1985; Withers and Hillman, 1988; Hedrick et al., 2015). This subsequently led us to a broader level of thinking about how aerobic capacity relates to endurance and dispersal using aerobic capacity and metabolic cost of transport to define physiological vagility, from ecological and evolutionary perspectives (e.g. Hillman et al., 2014). Considering the legacy of Bennett and Ruben's paper, what have we learned subsequently about: (1) limits to aerobic metabolism; (2) the coupling of maximal and resting metabolic rates; and (3) the proportional role of anaerobic metabolism to support activity in endotherms and ectotherms?

Recent evidence suggests that the delivery of oxygen by the cardiovascular system represents the fundamental rate limitation to maximal oxygen consumption and aerobic metabolism in all vertebrates (Hillman et al., 2013; Hedrick et al., 2015). The remaining convective (ventilation) and diffusive (respiratory and mitochondrial) steps in the oxygen cascade appear to have excess capacity and are therefore not limiting. Because the cardiovascular system represents the principal limit to maximal aerobic exercise, then selection might operate on the cardiovascular system to allow increased aerobic capacity in endotherms compared with ectotherms. We recently tested this idea by examining several key cardiovascular variables in groups of ectotherms and endotherms that were measured under conditions of maximal exercise (Hillman and Hedrick, 2015). Our analysis revealed a clear dichotomy in the cardiovascular characteristics between ectotherms and endotherms: endotherms had significantly elevated maximal heart rates, larger hearts relative to body mass and no difference in vascular conductance (Hillman and Hedrick, 2015). These results suggest that major cardiovascular steps in the support of endothermy were the increased rates of blood flow and cardiac power output (achieved by elevated heart rates) and increased arterial blood pressure (achieved by increased relative ventricle mass). The greatly expanded ability of endotherms to deliver oxygen supported the approximate 10-fold increase in maximal oxygen consumption of endotherms relative to ectotherms. This provides a mechanistic explanation for the variation in maximal metabolism delineated by Bennett and Ruben, but not for the coupling of maximal and resting metabolism.

The 1979 paper also influenced our thinking about the coupling of maximal and resting metabolic rates in vertebrates. Bennett and Ruben reasoned that selection operating on physiological factors to increase aerobic capacity and sustained activity would increase resting rates of metabolism as a by-product of the increase in maximal rates of metabolism. This linkage has also been questioned because endothermic heat production arises from increased mitochondrial metabolism in the visceral organs, whereas the increased metabolism associated with activity is a function of the energy used by skeletal muscles to produce work (Farmer, 2000). There is some empirical support for the aerobic capacity model from studies that have demonstrated a positive correlation between resting and maximal rates of metabolism (Bozinovic, 1992; Hayes and Garland, 1995; Dutenhofer and Swanson, 1996; Boily, 2002). The mechanism that explains the link between resting and maximal rates of metabolism is yet to be discovered.

The use of anaerobic energy metabolism and its generation of lactic acid has always been part of the story of why muscles fatigue, which limits endurance. The implication from the Bennett and Ruben paper is that ectothermic vertebrates derive a greater fraction of their total energy from anaerobic contributions compared with endotherms. Recent analyses confirm this implication and indicate that anaerobic metabolism starts to be used in conjunction with aerobic metabolism at between 50 and 70% of V˙O2,max in all vertebrate classes (see Hedrick et al., 2015). Anaerobic capacity does not seem to vary between vertebrate classes (Hedrick et al., 2015). The proportional contribution of anaerobic metabolism to total energy expended during maximal activity is considerably greater in ectotherms (Bennett and Ruben, 1979), and results from a lower aerobic potential than in endotherms, not an inherent difference in anaerobic capacity.

It appears that Bennett and Ruben were prescient in stressing the importance of sustainable activity as the likely first step in selection for increased aerobic metabolic capacity leading to endothermy rather than a focus on thermoregulation per se. Their work changed our perspective from one that presented thermoregulation as a means in itself to the concept that it may be a side effect of another process: that physiologically maintaining an elevated body temperature requires the production of heat via metabolism. This has led us to the understanding that the subsequent evolutionary step that was necessary to achieve an elevated body temperature via metabolism, rather than behaviour, required selection for increased insulation to retain the heat generated, and that the heat generated is limited by cardiac power output. The shift in thinking from a thermoregulatory perspective to an aerobic capacity argument put forth by Bennett and Ruben helped to spur a line of research into the limits of aerobic metabolism in ectotherms, and this has come full circle as a means of providing insight into the evolution of endothermy.

FOOTNOTES

  • Classics is an occasional column, featuring historic publications from the literature. These articles, written by modern experts in the field, discuss each classic paper's impact on the field of biology and their own work.

  • © 2016. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bennett, A. F. and
    2. Ruben, J. A.
    (1979). Endothermy and activity in vertebrates. Science 206, 649-654. doi:10.1126/science.493968
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bogert, C. M.
    (1949). Thermoregulation in reptiles, a factor in evolution. Evolution 3, 195-211. doi:10.2307/2405558
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Boily, P.
    (2002). Individual variation in metabolic traits of wild nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and aerobic capacity model. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 3207-3214.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Bozinovic, F.
    (1992). Scaling of basal and maximum metabolic rate in rodents and the aerobic capacity model for the evolution of endothermy. Physiol. Zool. 65, 921-932. doi:10.1086/physzool.65.5.30158550
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Cowles, R. B.
    (1958). Possible origin of dermal temperature regulation. Evolution 12, 347-357. doi:10.2307/2405856
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Dutenhofer, M. S. and
    2. Swanson, D. L.
    (1996). Relationship of basal to summit metabolic rate in passerine birds and the aerobic capacity model for the evolution of endothermy. Physiol. Zool. 69, 1232-1254. doi:10.1086/physzool.69.5.30164255
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Farmer, C. G.
    (2000). Parental care: the key to understanding endothermy and other convergent features in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 155, 326-334. doi:10.1086/303323
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hayes, J. P. and
    2. Garland, Jr. T.
    (1995). The evolution of endothermy: testing the aerobic capacity model. Evolution 49, 836-847. doi:10.2307/2410407
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Hedrick, M. S.,
    2. Hancock, T. V. and
    3. Hillman, S. S.
    (2015). Metabolism at the max: how vertebrate organisms respond to physical activity. Compr. Physiol. 5, 1677-1703. doi:10.1002/cphy.c130032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Hillman, S. S. and
    2. Hedrick, M. S.
    (2015). A meta-analysis of in vivo vertebrate cardiac performance: implications for cardiovascular support in the evolution of endothermy. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 1143-1150. doi:10.1242/jeb.118372
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Hillman, S. S.,
    2. Withers, P. C.,
    3. Hedrick, M. S. and
    4. Kimmel, P. B.
    (1985). The effects of erythrocythemia on blood viscosity, maximal systemic oxygen transport capacity and maximal rates of oxygen consumption in an amphibian. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 155, 577-581. doi:10.1007/BF00694447
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Hillman, S. S.,
    2. Hancock, T. V. and
    3. Hedrick, M. S.
    (2013). A comparative meta-analysis of maximal aerobic metabolism of vertebrates: Implications for respiratory and cardiovascular limits to gas exchange. J. Comp. Physiol. B. 183, 167-179. doi:10.1007/s00360-012-0688-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Hillman, S. S.,
    2. Drewes, R. C.,
    3. Hedrick, M. S. and
    4. Hancock, T. V.
    (2014). Physiological vagility and its relationship to dispersal and neutral genetic heterogeneity in vertebrates. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 3356-3364. doi:10.1242/jeb.105908
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Withers, P. C. and
    2. Hillman, S. S.
    (1988). A steady-state model of maximal oxygen and carbon dioxide transport in anuran amphibians. J. Appl. Physiol. 64, 860-868.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
What drove the evolution of endothermy?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
CLASSICS
What drove the evolution of endothermy?
Michael S. Hedrick, Stanley S. Hillman
Journal of Experimental Biology 2016 219: 300-301; doi: 10.1242/jeb.128009
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
CLASSICS
What drove the evolution of endothermy?
Michael S. Hedrick, Stanley S. Hillman
Journal of Experimental Biology 2016 219: 300-301; doi: 10.1242/jeb.128009

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • FOOTNOTES
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Safety in numbers
  • The V-ATPase in insect epithelia
  • Neurotransmission: peptide transmitters turn 36
Show more CLASSICS

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Meet the Editors at SICB Virtual 2021

Reserve your place to join some of the journal editors, including Editor-in-Chief Craig Franklin, at our Meet the Editor session on 17 February at 2pm (EST). Don’t forget to view our SICB Subject Collection, featuring relevant JEB papers relating to some of the symposia sessions.


2020 at The Company of Biologists

Despite 2020's challenges, we were able to bring a number of long-term projects and new ventures to fruition. As we enter a new year, join us as we reflect on the triumphs of the last 12 months.


Critical temperature window sends migratory black-headed buntings on their travels

The spring rise in temperature at black-headed bunting overwintering sites is essential for triggering the physical changes that they undergo before embarking on their spring migration – read more.


Developmental and reproductive physiology of small mammals at high altitude

Cayleih Robertson and Kathryn Wilsterman focus on high-altitude populations of the North American deer mouse in their review of the challenges and evolutionary innovations of pregnant and nursing small mammals at high altitude.


Read & Publish participation extends worldwide

“Being able to publish Open Access articles free of charge means that my article gets maximum exposure and has maximum impact, and that all my peers can read it regardless of the agreements that their universities have with publishers.”

Professor Roi Holzman (Tel Aviv University) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 60 institutions in 12 countries taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992