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
    • For library administrators
  • 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
    • For library administrators
COMMENTARY
Understanding variation in metabolic rate
Amanda K. Pettersen, Dustin J. Marshall, Craig R. White
Journal of Experimental Biology 2018 221: jeb166876 doi: 10.1242/jeb.166876 Published 11 January 2018
Amanda K. Pettersen
School of Biological Sciences/Centre for Geometric Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Amanda K. Pettersen
  • For correspondence: amanda.pettersen@monash.edu
Dustin J. Marshall
School of Biological Sciences/Centre for Geometric Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dustin J. Marshall
Craig R. White
School of Biological Sciences/Centre for Geometric Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Craig R. White
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Metabolic rate reflects an organism's capacity for growth, maintenance and reproduction, and is likely to be a target of selection. Physiologists have long sought to understand the causes and consequences of within-individual to among-species variation in metabolic rates – how metabolic rates relate to performance and how they should evolve. Traditionally, this has been viewed from a mechanistic perspective, relying primarily on hypothesis-driven approaches. A more agnostic, but ultimately more powerful tool for understanding the dynamics of phenotypic variation is through use of the breeder's equation, because variation in metabolic rate is likely to be a consequence of underlying microevolutionary processes. Here we show that metabolic rates are often significantly heritable, and are therefore free to evolve under selection. We note, however, that ‘metabolic rate’ is not a single trait: in addition to the obvious differences between metabolic levels (e.g. basal, resting, free-living, maximal), metabolic rate changes through ontogeny and in response to a range of extrinsic factors, and is therefore subject to multivariate constraint and selection. We emphasize three key advantages of studying metabolic rate within a quantitative genetics framework: its formalism, and its predictive and comparative power. We make several recommendations when applying a quantitative genetics framework: (i) measuring selection based on actual fitness, rather than proxies for fitness; (ii) considering the genetic covariances between metabolic rates throughout ontogeny; and (iii) estimating genetic covariances between metabolic rates and other traits. A quantitative genetics framework provides the means for quantifying the evolutionary potential of metabolic rate and why variance in metabolic rates within populations might be maintained.

Introduction

Metabolic rate reflects the ‘pace of life’ and is one of the most widely measured physiological traits. Metabolic rate has been linked to key physiological and life-history traits, including survival, growth, immunity, predation and reproductive output. Although metabolic rate is somewhat predictable – allometric scaling (see Glossary) between mass and metabolic rate is widespread, for example – variation is still substantial. Among species, there is a severalfold magnitude of difference in basal metabolic rate among individuals of the same mass (White and Kearney, 2013). At the level at which selection (see Glossary) operates (i.e. within species), basal metabolic rate can also vary considerably (Konarzewski and Ksiazek, 2013). This variation has long intrigued physiologists, and various hypotheses have been proposed to understand it (Glazier, 2005). As such, the field has been dominated by studies that seek to understand the proximal causes of variation – the biochemical and physiological mechanisms underlying the response of metabolic rate to biotic and abiotic drivers (as reviewed by Glazier, 2005). For example, the rate-of-living hypothesis (see Glossary) (Rubner, 1908) proposes that metabolic rate inversely determines longevity, based on observations that species with higher metabolic rates have shorter lifespans, although this remains controversial (Speakman, 2005; Glazier, 2015). More recent mechanistic explanations that seek to link metabolic rate to the pace of life have been proposed (Nilsson, 2002). The ‘compensation hypothesis’ (or ‘allocation hypothesis’) (see Glossary) suggests a fitness advantage of lower basal or standard metabolic rates as a result of lower maintenance costs, and thereby greater allocation of energy to reproduction (Gadgil and Bossert, 1970; Steyermark, 2002; Larivée et al., 2010). Alternatively, higher basal or standard metabolic rates allow for greater energy turnover and synthesis and maintenance of larger organs, leading to greater reproductive yield, known as the ‘increased-intake hypothesis’ (see Glossary) (Bennett and Ruben, 1979; Hayes et al., 1992). While these approaches may assign causation to an immediate response, exclusively mechanistic approaches have had limited success predicting how traits evolve. One key limitation with the mechanistic approach is that it lacks standardized methods to compare across studies. Meanwhile, phenomenological approaches such as those used in evolutionary biology are under-utilized in studies of metabolic rate.

Evolutionary biology seeks to understand the ultimate causes of variation in traits – causes that are a consequence of many generations of selection (Mayr, 1961). Darwin first observed that natural selection operating within populations ultimately shapes heritable differences among species. Estimates of the heritability (see Glossary) of metabolic rate vary widely, but are often more than zero (see ‘Genetic variation in metabolic rates’ section below). Within-population studies elucidate the selective forces acting on individuals, and the underlying genetic processes that constrain their evolution (see Glossary). To understand patterns in metabolic rates, and predict how they are likely to evolve under selection, it is necessary to measure ‘performance’ as fitness – the lifetime reproductive output of an individual – and to determine how fitness covaries with metabolic rates throughout ontogeny. Although metabolic rate is likely to evolve in response to selection, underlying genetic constraints may alter its evolution in ways that have yet to be considered in many physiological studies (Arnold, 1988), with some notable exceptions (e.g. Garland and Carter, 1994). We argue that quantitative genetics (see Glossary) provides a powerful framework for understanding the inheritance and evolution of traits, including their responses to selection.

Quantitative genetics partitions the population-level phenotypic variation of quantitative traits (see Glossary) into heritable and non-heritable components through measures of heritability and genetic correlation (see Glossary), and links those components to fitness via measures of selection. We emphasize three key advantages of studying metabolic rate within a quantitative genetics framework. (1) Formalism: evolutionary biologists have been thinking about the ultimate processes driving variation in traits since Darwin; microevolutionary theory and the powerful statistical tools developed from this work have been widely applied in the evolution community for over 40 years, and can be leveraged by physiological studies. (2) Predictive: microevolutionary approaches allow us to quantify how traits are likely to evolve given specific selection and genetic parameters. (3) Comparative: quantitative genetics provides standardized estimates of selection and heritability that are directly comparable among populations, species and environments. Here we advocate for wider adoption of the quantitative genetics approach in physiological studies in order to gain insights into evolutionary causes and consequences of variation in metabolic rate.

Glossary

Additive genetic variance (VA)

The magnitude of the total variance, due to the additive effects of each gene. The extent to which the average phenotype of the parent is reflected in the offspring, and the response to selection on a quantitative trait, is proportional to VA.

Allometric scaling

The relationship between the mass of an organism and its metabolic rate, where the slope of the log-log scaled relationship is less than 1 (i.e. non-isometric).

Breeder's equation

A tool developed to predict the amount of change in a single trait from one generation to the next: R=h2S, where h2 is narrow-sense heritability (the ratio of additive genetic variance to total phenotypic variance) and S is the selection differential (the change in population mean after selection).

Breeding values

The sum of the average effect of alleles carried by an individual.

Compensation hypothesis (‘allocation hypothesis’)

Hypothesis whereby lower metabolic rates confer a fitness advantage as a result of lower maintenance costs, and thereby greater allocation of energy to reproduction.

Correlational selection

Form of non-linear, multivariate selection where a combination of two or more traits interact non-additively to affect fitness.

Directional selection

Form of univariate selection characterized by a linear fitness function, causing an increase or decrease in the population mean trait value.

Disruptive selection

Form of non-linear, quadratic selection (see ‘Quadratic selection’) favouring individuals with extreme trait values. Under constant disruptive selection, the trait variance of a population will increase.

Evolution

The change in heritable traits of a population across generations.

Fitness

The number of surviving offspring produced by an individual after a single generation.

G matrix

Matrix of genetic variances and covariances, which summarizes the inheritance of multiple, phenotypic traits.

Genetic correlation

A standardized version of genetic covariance (see definition below) that varies from –1 to 1.

Genetic covariance

The correlation between the breeding values for different traits.

Genetic variance (VG)

The value of the effect of all an individual's genes that affect the trait of interest. Genetic variance has three main components: additive genetic variance, dominance variance and interaction (epistatic) variance.

Heritability (H2 or h2)

Proportion of variance in a phenotypic character in a population due to individual genetic differences that are inherited by offspring. Broad-sense heritability refers to the ratio of total genotypic variance to phenotypic variance (H2=VG/VP), while narrow-sense heritability refers to the ratio of additive genetic variance to phenotypic variance (h2=VA/VP).

Increased-intake hypothesis

Hypothesis relating performance with metabolic rates, where higher metabolic rates allow for greater energy turnover and synthesis of larger organs, leading to greater reproductive yield.

Indirect selection

Selection on one trait that arises from selection on another trait that is genetically correlated.

Linear selection

See ‘Directional selection’.

Microevolution

Within-species evolutionary change over short time scales, e.g. changes in gene frequencies within a population.

Non-linear selection

Univariate (see ‘Quadratic selection’) or multivariate (see ‘Correlational selection’) selection that is non-linear.

Quadratic selection

A form of non-linear, univariate selection that can also be positive (convex/disruptive) or negative (concave/stabilizing).

Quantitative genetics

The study of inheritance of genetically complex traits.

Quantitative trait

A trait that may be influenced by multiple genes, showing continuous variation in a population.

Rate-of-living hypothesis

Theory proposed by Rubner (1908) that lifespan is inversely related to metabolic rate, based on observations that larger animals with slower metabolic rates outlive smaller organisms with faster metabolic rates.

Selection

The differential survival and reproduction of individuals with varying phenotypes within a population. The covariance between fitness and a trait.

Selection coefficient (s)

Difference in relative fitness.

Selection differential (S)

Difference between the mean trait value of the population before and after selection.

Selection gradient

The slope (linear β, and non-linear γ) of the regression of fitness on a trait value.

Stabilizing selection

Form of non-linear, quadratic selection (see ‘Quadratic selection’) favouring individuals with intermediate trait values. Under constant stabilizing selection, the trait variance of a population will decrease.

The breeder's equation as a framework

The breeder's equation (see Glossary) is a fundamental tool used in quantitative genetics for understanding phenotypic evolution in response to selection, and has been used by evolutionary biologists for over 50 years. Quantitative traits have phenotypes that are continuously distributed in natural populations, and include morphological, physiological, behavioural and molecular phenotypes. Like other quantitative traits, metabolic rates are likely to be genetically complex and sensitive to environmental conditions. Quantitative genetic variation underlies phenotypic evolution – measuring the genetic basis of variation in quantitative traits is therefore essential to understanding variation in phenotypes, such as metabolic rates. The univariate breeder's equation predicts the amount of change in a single trait from one generation to the next in response to selection. The response of a quantitative trait to selection, R, is described by the breeder's equation: Embedded Image (1)where h2 is narrow-sense heritability [the ratio of additive genetic variance (see Glossary) to total phenotypic variance; see ‘Genetic variation in metabolic rates’ section below], and S is the selection differential (the change in population mean after selection) (see Glossary). The breeder's equation serves as a simple, but powerful, tool for understanding variation in metabolic rate and other physiological traits.

Univariate selection on metabolic rate

Selection is the phenotypic covariance between a trait and fitness, where fitness of an individual is determined by the contribution of offspring to the next generation (Falconer and Mackay, 1996). If fitness covaries with a trait, then that trait is said to be under selection. This relative difference in fitness among phenotypes (selection) forms one half of the breeder's equation and provides a standardized estimate of the strength and direction in which evolution is expected to occur, if the trait has adequate genetic variation. The slope of the relationship between relative fitness and a particular character (i.e. selection coefficient), weighted by the phenotype distribution, represents standardized estimates of selection.

Two general forms of univariate selection can occur: linear and quadratic selection (Box 1). Linear selection (see Glossary) occurs when fitness (w) consistently increases or decreases with the value of a trait (z), and is fitted by a linear function: Embedded Image (2)

where α is the intercept of the fitness function, and β is the coefficient giving the direction (positive or negative) and magnitude of selection. If a trait exhibits sufficient genetic variation (i.e. if it is heritable) and not constrained by other traits that are also correlated with fitness (see ‘Metabolic rate is more than a single trait’ section below), persistent directional selection (see Glossary) should result in a shift in the mean trait of a population (Kingsolver and Pfennig, 2007). Quadratic selection is characterized by a non-linear fitness function that can also be positive (disruptive) or negative (stabilizing), and is described by the quadratic fitness function: Embedded Image (3)where γ is the degree of curvature in the fitness function. Selection is stabilizing when β is 0 and γ is negative, such that intermediate values of a trait possess highest fitness while extreme trait values have lowest fitness. Selection is disruptive when β is 0 and γ is positive. Where disruptive selection (see Glossary) is maintained across generations, population variance will increase as selection favours trait values on the tail ends of the trait distribution. Under constant stabilizing selection (see Glossary), there is a single optimal value for a phenotype, hence variance in population traits would be expected to decrease over generations. Note that quadratic selection can occur when β≠0; this is termed either concave (stabilizing) or convex (disruptive) selection. By providing comparable estimates of selection on metabolic rate, selection analyses have the potential to leverage comparative data (i.e. comparing values of β and γ) that vary across spatial and temporal scales, study systems and phenotypic characters (Kingsolver et al., 2001). Indeed, the idea that a single value of a trait is consistently beneficial under all circumstances seems unlikely, and the same is true of metabolic rate. Spatial and temporal variation in selection therefore seems likely to be a mechanism by which variance in metabolic rate is maintained. To some extent, selection analyses have already been implemented in the general mechanisms that have been proposed to explain variation in metabolic rates, i.e. covariance between metabolic rate and some measure of performance (fitness). The increased-intake and compensation hypotheses point towards positive and negative directional selection on (basal or standard) metabolic rate, respectively, for example, while the ‘context dependent’ hypothesis (Burton et al., 2011) points toward selection gradients (see Glossary) that vary in space and time. The approach we advocate is therefore not incompatible with proximate mechanistic approaches; rather selection analyses provide the formalism and standardized measures required to make comparable estimates for the relationship between metabolic rate and fitness.

Box 1. Predicted population-level response to persistent univariate and multivariate selection

(A) Directional selection: in this example the linear coefficient of selection β is positive. Over generations, the population mean of trait 1 (t1) is expected to increase. (B) Stabilizing selection: where the quadratic coefficient γ is negative. Over generations, the population variance will decrease, forming a single optimum for t1. (C) Disruptive selection: where the quadratic coefficient γ is positive. Over generations, the population variance will decrease, forming two optima for t1. (D) Positive correlational selection on t1 and trait 2 (t2) (where γ is positive) produces an increase in the covariance between t1 and t2. (E) Negative correlational selection on t1 and t2 (where γ is negative) produces a decrease in the covariance between t1 and t2.

Embedded Image

In order to gain reliable estimates of selection, studies need to measure actual fitness (see Glossary). So far, selection studies on metabolic rate have relied almost exclusively on the use of fitness proxies, such as survival, growth or reproductive traits such as clutch size, rather than the ultimate measure of fitness: lifetime reproductive output (Box 2). This view is illustrated by the compilations of Biro and Stamps (2010), Burton et al. (2011) and White and Kearney (2013). The tables summarizing the known phenotypic correlations between metabolic rate and fitness proxies in these papers do not provide any examples of a correlation between metabolic rate and actual fitness.

Box 2. Compilation of studies measuring the relationship between metabolic rates and survival or reproductive output as fitness proxies
View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Using fitness proxies can create misleading or incomplete interpretations of the strength and direction of selection if these proxies trade-off with actual fitness. For example, Pettersen et al. (2016) show that metabolic rates through ontogeny covary with actual fitness (lifetime reproductive output) as well as several fitness proxies, but the direction and magnitude of the covariance differs among measurements of metabolic rate. Fitness was maximized when individuals had low metabolic rates early in ontogeny (MRE) but high metabolic rates later (MRL) (or vice versa). Although we found evidence for correlational selection (see Glossary) alone based on true fitness, estimates based on fitness proxies incorrectly implied that directional selection was operating. For example, individuals with higher MRE reproduced sooner, but individuals with lower MRL were longer lived, and growth rate was maximized when MRE was high and MRL was low. In this case, using any of the commonly used proxies for fitness (growth rate, longevity, age at the onset of reproduction) would lead to wildly different, and incorrect, conclusions about the expected evolutionary trajectory of metabolic rate.

Genetic variation in metabolic rates

As the breeder's equation elegantly illustrates, selection on a trait will not generate evolution of that trait unless the trait is heritable. The capacity for metabolic rates to evolve thus depends not only on covariation between metabolic rate and fitness, but also on the other half of the breeder's equation – the genetic basis of variation in metabolic rate. The total phenotypic variance of a trait (VP) is the sum of the variances attributable to genetic (VG) and environmental (VE) influences (including maternal effects), and the variance associated with the interaction between genetic and environmental influences (VGE). VG can be further subdivided into three components: additive (VA), dominance (VD) and interaction (VI) variance, where collectively VD and VI are known as non-additive genetic variance and are not easily disentangled using standard quantitative genetics designs. VA quantifies deviations from the mean phenotype attributable to the additive contribution of particular alleles to the phenotype; VD quantifies interactions between alleles (dominance) and VI quantifies interactions between alleles (epistasis). Heritability in the broad sense (H2) is calculated as VG/VP, whereas heritability in the narrow sense (h2) – the metric of interest for the breeder's equation – quantifies the contribution of additive genetic variance to total phenotypic variance and is calculated as VA/VP.

The heritability of a trait can be estimated in multiple ways (Box 3), but a common feature of all approaches is that they require the measurement of usually hundreds or thousands of individuals of known pedigree. The requirement to measure so many individuals means that estimates of h2 for metabolic rate are historically rare, but are becoming much more common: we are aware of only two estimates published prior to 2000 (Lacy and Lynch, 1979; Lynch and Sulzbach, 1984), and most (43) of the remaining 64 estimates we were able to locate have been published since 2010. The available estimates range from 0 to 0.72; h2 is significantly higher for endotherms than for ectotherms, and h2 is significantly higher for active metabolic levels than for resting metabolic levels, defined here as the rate of oxygen consumption of an inactive, non-reproductive, post-absorptive animal (Box 4). These heritability estimates suggest that metabolic rate is, in many cases and especially for endotherms and for active metabolic rates, likely to be free to evolve under selection. In support of this suggestion, artificial selection experiments have yielded responses to selection on basal metabolic rate (Ksiazek et al., 2004) and maximum metabolic rate in laboratory mice (Gebczynski and Konarzewski, 2009; Wone et al., 2015), and maximum metabolic rate in bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus (Sadowska et al., 2015).

Box 3. Methods for estimation of the heritability of metabolic rate (parent–offspring regression, half-sibling–full sibling breeding designs and the ‘animal model’), and a compilation of published estimates of the heritability of metabolic rate

(A) Parent–offspring regression showing the relationship between parent and offspring metabolic rate for cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea from a breeding design in which 48 sires were each mated to three dams, and the metabolic rates of all sires and dams, and three of the adult offspring from each clutch, were measured (Schimpf et al., 2013). Narrow sense heritability is estimated as the slope of the line relating offspring and mid-parent trait values; here residual metabolic rates were calculated from a model describing variation in log10-tranformed metabolic rate as functions of log10-transformed body mass and sex (h2=0.12±0.07, mean±s.e.m.). (B) Among-sire differences in residual resting metabolic rate for cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea from the same experiment (Schimpf et al., 2013). Half-siblings have one-quarter of their alleles in common, so in a half-sibling–full sibling breeding design, the among-sire variance (Vsire) is equal to one-quarter of the additive genetic variance (VA), and h2=4Vsire/VP, where VP is total phenotypic variance. In the example in (B), which utilizes only the data for the adult offspring (i.e. those individuals with a known sire and dam; sires and dams of the parental generation are unknown), sire and dam variances were calculated for a model describing variation in log10-tranformed metabolic rate as functions of the fixed effects of sex and log10-transformed body mass, with random effects for sire and dam nested within sire estimated using restricted maximum likelihood (REML); h2=0.10±0.16 [the model was implemented in ASReml-R version 3.0 in R version 3.0.2, with standard errors for variance ratios calculated using the delta method; Gilmour et al. (2009); http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/iwhite//asreml/; http://www.R-project.org/]. For presentation, residual metabolic rates were calculated from a model describing variation in log10-tranformed metabolic rate as functions of log10-transformed body mass and sex, and data are shown ranked by the mean value of metabolic rate for each sire. (C) The ‘animal model’ is a form of mixed-effects model used to partition phenotypic variance into different genetic and environmental sources using knowledge of the relatedness of individuals in a population (Wilson et al., 2010), such as depicted here for the descendants of two sires in the cockroach half-sibling–full sibling breeding design (males are green squares and females are orange circles). Calculated using the animal model, h2=0.12±0.07 (the model was implemented in ASReml-R version 3.0 in R version 3.0.2, with standard errors for variance ratios calculated using the delta method).

Embedded Image

Box 4. Forest plot summarizing published estimates of the narrow-sense heritability (h2 shown with s.e.m. where possible) of metabolic rate for endotherms and ectotherms, subdivided by activity level

Filled symbols, endotherms; open symbols, ectotherms. Resting: resting, basal or standard metabolic rate (blue circles). Daily: daily rate of energy expenditure or sustained metabolic rate (black squares). Activity: peak metabolic rate, flight metabolic rate, maximum metabolic rate, or maximum rate of oxygen consumption elicited by treadmill exercise or swimming (orange diamonds). With the two values for daily metabolic rate excluded from analysis, there was no significant interaction between activity level (resting or active) and endothermy (endotherm or ectotherm) as predictors of h2 in a mixed model including random effects of species and publication [t56.4=−0.61, P=0.54; the model was implemented in the ‘lme4’ version 1.1-13 package of R version 3.2.3, with the significance of fixed effects based on Satterthwaite approximation for denominator degrees of freedom from the ‘lmerTest’ package version 2.0.33: Bates et al. (2015); http://cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest; http://www.R-project.org/]. With the non-significant interaction removed from the model, h2 is significantly different from zero (intercept=0.19±0.06, t13.2=3.00, P=0.01), endotherms have significantly higher h2 than ectotherms (parameter estimate=0.19±0.08, t12.8=2.38, P=0.03) and h2 is higher for active metabolic levels than for resting metabolic levels (parameter estimate=0.21±0.05, t54.6=4.3, P<0.001); estimates of h2 for mass-independent metabolic rates were not significantly different from estimates of h2 for whole-animal metabolic rates (parameter estimate=−0.08±0.05, t56.0=−1.67, P=0.10); variance components: species=0.0159, publication <0.0001, residual=0.0197.

Embedded Image

After accounting for genetic contributions to phenotypic variance, there remains a significant proportion of unexplained variation in metabolic rate that needs to be considered. Variation in metabolic rate may also be a consequence of environmental effects, which can affect metabolic rate either directly (e.g. temperature effects on metabolic rate in ectotherms; Angilletta et al., 2002), or indirectly (e.g. nutritional state on standard metabolic rate; Auer et al., 2015). Parental effects are also known to influence physiological traits (e.g. Bacigalupe et al., 2007; Sadowska et al., 2013). For example, brown trout may alter the routine metabolic rates of their offspring in order to control timing of emergence and therefore dispersal in larvae (Régnier et al., 2010). Addressing the relative importance of heritable versus non-heritable components of variation in metabolic rate will provide a more complete picture of how we expect variation in metabolic rate to evolve.

Multivariate breeder's equation

The univariate breeder's equation is a useful heuristic tool for understanding how microevolutionary processes (see Glossary) work. Increasingly, however, it seems that a more complex approach to predicting microevolution is necessary. The univariate breeder's equation necessarily treats each trait in isolation but it has long been recognized that no trait is an island (Dobzhansky, 1956). Traits covary with each other genetically such that evolution in one trait will necessarily cause evolution in another, and selection often acts on multiple traits simultaneously such that the fitness returns of one trait value depend on the value of other traits. The multivariate breeder's equation reflects this complexity and connectedness of traits in terms of both genetics and selection.

Consider the response to selection of a trait, which we will call trait 1 (z1). As described by the univariate breeder's equation, the evolution of that trait will of course depend on the selection on that trait (β1) and the genetic variation in that trait (which we will denote as G1,1). However, let us suppose that another trait (trait 2) covaries genetically with trait 1; such a covariance would be denoted as G1,2. Let us also suppose that trait 2 is under selection (β2). The response of trait 1 (Δz1) will therefore be the sum of the evolution due to direct selection on trait 1 and the indirect selection (see Glossary) on trait 1 via the genetic covariance (see Glossary) with trait 2 and selection on trait 2, or formally: Embedded Image (4)Furthermore, the covariance between traits 1 and 2 will also be affected by the correlational selection on these traits, formally represented as γ1,2 (see below). Eqn 4 can be extended to as many traits that genetically covary and experience selection: Embedded Image (5)where the column vector of changes in phenotypic trait values for n traits, Δz={Δz1, Δz2, … Δzn}T, is a function of a column vector of selection gradients β={β1, β2, …}T and a matrix of genetic variances and covariances [the G matrix (see Glossary)]. Although more complicated, a quick consideration of a realistic but simple example reveals why the multivariate equation provides a more complete understanding of the microevolutionary forces acting on metabolic rate. Suppose for example that trait 1 is metabolic rate and trait 2 is running speed in a hypothetical lizard species. Further assume that metabolic rate is subjected to strong negative directional selection (i.e. β1 is negative) and that the heritability of metabolic rate is high, because the trait has significant additive genetic variance (G1,1>0). The univariate breeder's equation and the first component of the multivariate breeder's equation (β1×G1,1) would therefore predict that metabolic rate would decrease from one generation to the next. However, further suppose that metabolic rate covaries positively with running speed (G1,2 is positive) and there is strong positive directional selection for faster running speeds (β2 is positive). The second component of the multivariate breeder's equation (β2×G1,2) would therefore be highly positive and might ‘cancel out’ the selection for lower metabolic rate in the first term. Thus by considering more traits, we move from a misleading prediction of an evolutionary response to a more accurate one. Unfortunately, there is no magic number of traits that should be considered; instead we are left with the rather unsatisfying statement that more traits are likely to be more informative than fewer traits. A multivariate view of evolution is particularly important for considerations of metabolic rate specifically for at least two reasons: first, because metabolic rate is likely to be more than just a single trait, and second, because metabolic rate is almost certainly under multivariate selection.

Metabolic rate is more than a single trait

What is metabolic rate? Measures of metabolic rate integrate the rates at which organisms expend energy to do metabolic work, and so incorporate energy expenditure for a wide range of processes including the maintenance of homeostasis, growth and reproduction, movement and digestion. Metabolic rate is measured as the rate of heat production by direct calorimetry, or – more often – is estimated from rates of oxygen consumption or carbon dioxide production measured by indirect calorimetry (Lighton, 2008). Metabolic rate can be measured for animals that are free-living in the field; for animals at rest; for animals experiencing elevated metabolic rates due to exercise, digestion, lactation, thermogenesis or osmoregulation; or for animals exhibiting depressed metabolism due to hibernation or torpor, hypoxia or anoxia, desiccation or aestivation (Suarez, 2012). The major contributors to whole-organism metabolic rate will change as animals transition through these metabolic states, raising the important question of the extent to which they are constrained to always evolve together (‘metabolic rate’ is a single trait), or free to evolve independently (‘metabolic rate’ is many traits). In mammals, most metabolic activity during basal metabolism is associated with the internal organs including liver, kidney, gastrointestinal tract, heart and brain. Whereas during exercise-induced maximal metabolism, most (ca. 90%) metabolic activity is associated with work done by the locomotor muscles and the work done to deliver substrates and oxygen to these (reviewed by White and Kearney, 2013). From a mechanistic perspective, it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that these metabolic states represent different traits. From a quantitative genetics perspective, however, what matters is the extent to which two putative traits covary genetically. Published mass-independent additive genetic correlations between basal and running-induced maximal metabolic rate range from 0.21 to 0.72 (Dohm et al., 2001; Wone et al., 2009, 2015). Thus these traits – basal and maximal metabolic rate – are at least somewhat free to evolve independently, as has been demonstrated in selection experiments (Sadowska et al., 2015; Wone et al., 2015). What is less clear, however, is the extent to which measurements of a single metabolic state, but taken at different times, represent the same trait.

Two measurements of the same phenotype can be considered a single trait genetically only if they covary perfectly. Resting metabolic rate (as defined earlier) is perhaps the most widely measured physiological phenotype. Resting metabolic rate is repeatable (Nespolo and Franco, 2007; White and Kearney, 2013; Auer et al., 2016a) and heritable (see ‘Genetic variation in metabolic rates’ section above, and Box 4), but not perfectly so. It varies during ontogeny due to changes in size and growth (e.g. Moran and Wells, 2007; Rosenfeld et al., 2015), seasonally (e.g. Smit and McKechnie, 2010), geographically (e.g. Broggi et al., 2007), with food deprivation (e.g. Schimpf et al., 2012), due to changes mitochondrial coupling (Salin et al., 2015), and in response to a range of other biotic and abiotic variables (reviewed by Konarzewski and Książek, 2013; White and Kearney, 2013). Furthermore, not only does metabolic rate vary over time in the same individuals, but individuals can vary in the flexibility of their metabolic rate – in other words, the reaction norm of metabolic rate varies among individuals (Auer et al., 2015, 2016b). Thus an organism has no single metabolic rate, even for a single well-defined metabolic state (e.g. resting metabolic rate), and metabolic rate is therefore likely to be more than one single trait. Even if differences in metabolic rate throughout the life history were trivial, we know from a previous study that selection perceives metabolic rates (and their combinations) differently (Pettersen et al., 2016). In Pettersen et al. (2016), metabolic rate was only measured at two time points in the life history – both during early stages of development, which is unlikely to capture a complete picture of selection. We therefore suggest that the field should work towards gaining multiple measures of metabolic rate if we are to gain an accurate representation of net selection on metabolic rates. We acknowledge the considerable logistical challenges associated with doing so, but we nonetheless advocate treating metabolic rate at different times as separate traits as a useful heuristic for future studies.

Multivariate selection on metabolic rates

Selection acts on combinations of traits, rather than individual traits in isolation (Lande and Arnold, 1983; Blows and McGuigan, 2015). Multivariate (or non-linear correlational) selection examines how selection affects, and is affected by, correlations between traits (Phillips and Arnold, 1989). Studies measuring selection on metabolic rate have largely focused on relationships between fitness and single traits (although see Artacho et al., 2015); however, univariate analyses provide limited scope for predicting change in phenotypic distribution (Phillips and Arnold, 1989). This is because apparent selection on one trait may be due to selection on another unmeasured, correlated trait – resulting in misleading conclusions about selection on the initial trait. Genetically coupled traits will not evolve independently; selection on one trait is likely to cause evolutionary changes in the other trait. For example, selection on metabolic rate early in ontogeny (MRE) may yield a correlated response in metabolic rate late in ontogeny (MRL) if MRE and MRL are positively genetically correlated, even if there is no direct selection on MRL. Metabolic rate is known to show additive genetic correlations with a range of traits including body mass (Rønning et al., 2007; Nilsson et al., 2009; Tieleman et al., 2009; Careau et al., 2011; Schimpf et al., 2013), maximum metabolic rate (Sadowska et al., 2005; Wone et al., 2009, 2015), growth rate (Sadowska et al., 2009), the ability to cope with a poor diet (Sadowska et al., 2009) and exploratory behaviour (Careau et al., 2011). These and other additive genetic correlations may constrain the evolution of metabolic rate, but such constraints would not be identifiable in a univariate framework that considers metabolic rate in isolation. If several traits are measured, however, a multivariate approach can determine relative direct and indirect selection acting on each trait through multiple regression.

Correlational selection favours certain combinations of traits, and is measured using second-order polynomial regression to produce a fitness surface that is a function of linear and squared (quadratic) trait values: Embedded Image (6)where z = {z1, z2,… zn}T is a column vector of phenotypic values for n traits, β={β1, β2, …}T is the column vector of directional selection gradients, and γ is the matrix of non-linear selection (see Glossary) gradients: Embedded Image (7)where γi,i is a stabilizing or disruptive selection gradient for trait i, and γi,j is a correlational selection gradient for traits i and j (Stinchcombe et al., 2008). Note that in the univariate case where correlational selection is not considered, Eqn 6 simplifies to: Embedded Image (8)(i.e. Eqn 1). Despite the importance of estimating correlational selection for providing a more complete visualization of the distribution of phenotypes, studies that measure correlational selection on physiological traits are rare.

In a study on a bryozoan, Pettersen et al. (2016) found significant negative correlational selection between metabolic rates across two life stages [early (MRE) and late (MRL) in juvenile development], but positive phenotypic covariance between these traits (individuals with high MRE generally possessed high MRL and vice versa). In other words, there is a positive covariance between the two metabolic rates but selection ‘wants’ to decrease this covariance. Furthermore, under persistent correlational selection across generations, we might expect the positive covariance among metabolic rates to decrease and become negative over time. However, without an understanding of the degree of genetic covariance among traits (such as metabolic rates across ontogeny), our capacity to make such predictions remains limited.

Conclusions and future directions

Metabolic rate is perhaps the most widely measured physiological trait, and has long been argued to have important implications for life history, ecology and evolution. We argue that more widespread adoption of a microevolutionary quantitative genetics framework is valuable for understanding variation in metabolic rate. In adopting such an approach, we should consider metabolic rate as a multivariate trait and measure actual fitness (lifetime reproductive output) in the field, in order to estimate the genetic covariance between metabolic rates and fitness throughout ontogeny. Such measurements are needed in order to understand the drivers of phenotypic variation in metabolic rate.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Professor Neil Metcalfe and Professor Craig Franklin for thoughtful comments which significantly helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.

FOOTNOTES

  • Competing interests

    The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

  • Funding

    This work was funded by an Australian Postgraduate Award to A.K.P. and Australian Research Council Grants to D.J.M. and C.R.W.

  • © 2018. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd

References

  1. ↵
    1. Angilletta, M. J.,
    2. Niewiarowski, P. H. and
    3. Navas, C. A.
    (2002). The evolution of thermal physiology in ectotherms. J. Therm. Biol. 27, 249-268. doi:10.1016/S0306-4565(01)00094-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Arnold, S. J.
    (1988). Genetic correlation and the evolution of physiology. In New Directions in Ecological Physiology (ed. M. E. Feder, A. F. Bennett, W. W. Burggren and R. B. Huey), pp. 189-212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Artacho, P. and
    2. Nespolo, R. F.
    (2009). Natural selection reduces energy metabolism in the garden snail, Helix aspersa (Cornu aspersum). Evolution 63, 1044-1050. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00603.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Artacho, P.,
    2. Saravia, J.,
    3. Ferrandière, B. D.,
    4. Perret, S. and
    5. Le Galliard, J.-F.
    (2015). Quantification of correlational selection on thermal physiology, thermoregulatory behavior, and energy metabolism in lizards. Ecol. Evol. 5, 3600-3609. doi:10.1002/ece3.1548
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Auer, S. K.,
    2. Salin, K.,
    3. Rudolf, A. M.,
    4. Anderson, G. J. and
    5. Metcalfe, N. B.
    (2015). Flexibility in metabolic rate confers a growth advantage under changing food availability. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1405-1411. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12384
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Auer, S. K.,
    2. Bassar, R. D.,
    3. Salin, K. and
    4. Metcalfe, N. B.
    (2016a). Repeatability of metabolic rate is lower for animals living under field versus laboratory conditions. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 631-634. doi:10.1242/jeb.133678
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Auer, S. K.,
    2. Salin, K.,
    3. Anderson, G. J. and
    4. Metcalfe, N. B.
    (2016b). Flexibility in metabolic rate and activity level determines individual variation in overwinter performance. Oecologia 182, 703-712. doi:10.1007/s00442-016-3697-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Bacigalupe, L. D.,
    2. Araya, N. M.,
    3. Carter, M. J.,
    4. Catalána, T. P.,
    5. Lardies, M. A. and
    6. Bozinovic, F.
    (2007). Maternal effects, maternal body size and offspring energetics: a study in the common woodlouse Porcellio laevis. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 147, 349-354. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.01.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bartheld, J. L.,
    2. Gaitan-Espitia, J. D.,
    3. Artacho, P.,
    4. Salgado-Luarte, C.,
    5. Gianoli, E. and
    6. Nespolo, R. F.
    (2015). Energy expenditure and body size are targets of natural selection across a wide geographic range, in a terrestrial invertebrate. Funct. Ecol. 29, 1463-1474. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12451
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Bates, D.,
    2. Machler, M.,
    3. Bolker, B. M. and
    4. Walker, S. C.
    (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    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
  10. ↵
    1. Biro, P. A. and
    2. Stamps, J. A.
    (2010). Do consistent individual differences in metabolic rate promote consistent individual differences in behavior? Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 653-659. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Blows, M. W. and
    2. McGuigan, K.
    (2015). The distribution of genetic variance across phenotypic space and the response to selection. Mol. Ecol. 24, 2056-2072. doi:10.1111/mec.13023
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Boratynski, Z. and
    2. Koteja, P.
    (2010). Sexual and natural selection on body mass and metabolic rates in free-living bank voles. Funct. Ecol. 24, 1252-1261. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01764.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Boratynski, Z.,
    2. Koskela, E.,
    3. Mappes, T. and
    4. Oksanen, T. A.
    (2010). Sex-specific selection on energy metabolism - selection coefficients for winter survival. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 1969-1978. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02059.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Broggi, J.,
    2. Hohtola, E.,
    3. Koivula, K.,
    4. Orell, M.,
    5. Thomson, R. L. and
    6. Nilsson, J. A.
    (2007). Sources of variation in winter basal metabolic rate in the great tit. Funct. Ecol. 21, 528-533. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01255.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Burton, T.,
    2. Killen, S. S.,
    3. Armstrong, J. D. and
    4. Metcalfe, N. B.
    (2011). What causes intraspecific variation in resting metabolic rate and what are its ecological consequences? Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 3465-3473. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1778
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Careau, V.,
    2. Thomas, D.,
    3. Pelletier, F.,
    4. Turki, L.,
    5. Landry, F.,
    6. Garant, D. and
    7. Réale, D.
    (2011). Genetic correlation between resting metabolic rate and exploratory behaviour in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). J. Evol. Biol. 24, 2153-2163. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02344.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Careau, V.,
    2. Bergeron, P.,
    3. Garant, D.,
    4. Reale, D.,
    5. Speakman, J. R. and
    6. Humphries, M. M.
    (2013). The energetic and survival costs of growth in free-ranging chipmunks. Oecologia 171, 11-23. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2385-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Dobzhansky, T.
    (1956). What is an adaptive trait? Am. Nat. 90, 337-347. doi:10.1086/281944
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Dohm, M. R.,
    2. Hayes, J. P. and
    3. Garland, T.
    (2001). The quantitative genetics of maximal and basal rates of oxygen consumption in mice. Genetics 159, 267-277.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Falconer, D. S. and
    2. Mackay, T. F. C.
    (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Harlow: Pearson.
    1. Fletcher, Q. E.,
    2. Speakman, J. R.,
    3. Boutin, S.,
    4. Lane, J. E.,
    5. McAdam, A. G.,
    6. Gorrell, J. C.,
    7. Coltman, D. W. and
    8. Humphries, M. M.
    (2015). Daily energy expenditure during lactation is strongly selected in a free-living mammal. Funct. Ecol. 29, 195-208. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12313
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Gadgil, M. and
    2. Bossert, W. H.
    (1970). Life historical consequences of natural selection. Am. Nat. 104, 1-24. doi:10.1086/282637
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Garland, T. and
    2. Carter, P. A.
    (1994). Evolutionary physiology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 56, 579-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.ph.56.030194.003051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Gebczynski, A. K. and
    2. Konarzewski, M.
    (2009). Metabolic correlates of selection on aerobic capacity in laboratory mice: a test of the model for the evolution of endothermy. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 2872-2878. doi:10.1242/jeb.030874
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Gilmour, A. R.,
    2. Gogel, B. J.,
    3. Cullis, B. R. and
    4. Thompson, R.
    (2009). ASReml User Guide Release 3.0. Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK: VSN International Ltd.
  22. ↵
    1. Glazier, D. S.
    (2005). Beyond the ‘3/4-power law’: variation in the intra- and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals. Biol. Rev. 80, 611-662. doi:10.1017/S1464793105006834
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Glazier, D. S.
    (2015). Is metabolic rate a universal ‘pacemaker’ for biological processes? Biol. Rev. 90, 377-407. doi:10.1111/brv.12115
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Hayes, J. P.,
    2. Garland, T. and
    3. Dohm, M. R.
    (1992). Individual variation in metabolism and reproduction of Mus: are energetics and life history linked? Funct. Ecol. 6, 5-14. doi:10.2307/2389765
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Jackson, D. M.,
    2. Trayhurn, P. and
    3. Speakman, J. R.
    (2001). Associations between energetics and over-winter survival in the short-tailed field vole Microtus agrestis. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 633-640. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00518.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Johnson, M. S.,
    2. Thomson, S. C. and
    3. Speakman, J. R.
    (2001). Limits to sustained energy intake II. Inter-relationships between resting metabolic rate, life-history traits and morphology in Mus musculus. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 1937-1946.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Kingsolver, J. G.,
    2. Hoekstra, H. E.,
    3. Hoekstra, J. M.,
    4. Berrigan, D.,
    5. Vignieri, S. N.,
    6. Hill, C. E.,
    7. Hoang, A.,
    8. Gibert, P. and
    9. Beerli, P.
    (2001). The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat. 157, 245-261. doi:10.1086/319193
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Kingsolver, J. G. and
    2. Pfennig, D. W.
    (2007). Patterns and power of phenotypic selection in nature. Bioscience 57, 561-572. doi:10.1641/B570706
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Konarzewski, M. and
    2. Ksiazek, A.
    (2013). Determinants of intra-specific variation in basal metabolic rate. J. Comp. Physiol. B Biochem. Syst. Environ. Physiol. 183, 27-41. doi:10.1007/s00360-012-0698-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Ksiazek, A.,
    2. Konarzewski, M. and
    3. Lapo, I. B.
    (2004). Anatomic and energetic correlates of divergent selection for basal metabolic rate in laboratory mice. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 77, 890-899. doi:10.1086/425190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Lacy, R. C. and
    2. Lynch, C. B.
    (1979). Quantitative genetic analysis of temperature regulation in Mus musculus. 1. Partitioning of variance. Genetics 91, 743-753.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Lande, R. and
    2. Arnold, S. J.
    (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210-1226. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Larivée, M. L.,
    2. Boutin, S.,
    3. Speakman, J. R.,
    4. McAdam, A. G. and
    5. Humphries, M. M.
    (2010). Associations between over-winter survival and resting metabolic rate in juvenile North American red squirrels. Funct. Ecol. 24, 597-607. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01680.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Lighton, J. R. B.
    (2008). Measuring Metabolic Rates: a Manual for Scientists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. ↵
    1. Lynch, C. B. and
    2. Sulzbach, D. S.
    (1984). Quantitative genetic analysis of temperature regulation in Mus musculus. 2. Diallel analysis of individual traits. Evolution 38, 527-540.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Mayr, E.
    (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Kinds of causes, predictability, and teleology are viewed by a practising biologist. Science 134, 1501. doi:10.1126/science.134.3489.1501
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Moran, D. and
    2. Wells, R. M. G.
    (2007). Ontogenetic scaling of fish metabolism in the mouse-to-elephant mass magnitude range. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 148, 611-620. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Nespolo, R. F. and
    2. Franco, M.
    (2007). Whole-animal metabolic rate is a repeatable trait: a meta-analysis. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 2000-2005. doi:10.1242/jeb.02780
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Nilsson, J.-A.
    (2002). Metabolic consequences of hard work. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 269, 1735-1739. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2071
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Nilsson, J. F. and
    2. Nilsson, J. A.
    (2016). Fluctuating selection on basal metabolic rate. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1197-1202. doi:10.1002/ece3.1954
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Nilsson, J. A.,
    2. Akesson, M. and
    3. Nilsson, J. F.
    (2009). Heritability of resting metabolic rate in a wild population of blue tits. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1867-1874. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01798.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Pettersen, A. K.,
    2. White, C. R.,
    3. Marshall, D. J.
    (2016). Metabolic rate covaries with fitness and the pace of the life history in the field. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0323
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Phillips, P. C. and
    2. Arnold, S. J.
    (1989). Visualizing multivariate selection. Evolution 43, 1209-1222. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02569.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Régnier, T.,
    2. Bolliet, V.,
    3. Labonne, J. and
    4. Gaudin, P.
    (2010). Assessing maternal effects on metabolic rate dynamics along early development in brown trout (Salmo trutta): an individual-based approach. J. Comp. Physiol. B 180, 25-31. doi:10.1007/s00360-009-0385-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Robertsen, G.,
    2. Armstrong, J. D.,
    3. Nislow, K. H.,
    4. Herfindal, I.,
    5. McKelvey, S. and
    6. Einum, S.
    (2014). Spatial variation in the relationship between performance and metabolic rate in wild juvenile Atlantic salmon. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 791-799. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12182
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Rønning, B.,
    2. Jensen, H.,
    3. Moe, B. and
    4. Bech, C.
    (2007). Basal metabolic rate: heritability and genetic correlations with morphological traits in the zebra finch. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 1815-1822. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01384.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Rosenfeld, J.,
    2. Van Leeuwen, T.,
    3. Richards, J. and
    4. Allen, D.
    (2015). Relationship between growth and standard metabolic rate: measurement artefacts and implications for habitat use and life-history adaptation in salmonids. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 4-20. doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Rubner, M.
    (1908). Das Problem der Lebensdaur und seine Beziehungen zu Wachstum und Ernährung. Munich: Oldenberg.
  45. ↵
    1. Sadowska, E. T.,
    2. Baliga-Klimczyk, K.,
    3. Labocha, M. K. and
    4. Koteja, P.
    (2009). Genetic correlations in a wild rodent: grass-eaters and fast-growers evolve high basal metabolic rates. Evolution 63, 1530-1539. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00641.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Sadowska, E. T.,
    2. Labocha, M. K.,
    3. Baliga, K.,
    4. Stanisz, A.,
    5. Wróblewska, A. K.,
    6. Jagusiak, W. and
    7. Koteja, P.
    (2005). Genetic correlations between basal and maximum metabolic rates in a wild rodent: consequences for evolution of endothermy. Evolution 59, 672-681. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01025.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    1. Sadowska, E. T.,
    2. Stawski, C.,
    3. Rudolf, A.,
    4. Dheyongera, G.,
    5. Chrzascik, K. M.,
    6. Baliga-Klimczyk, K. and
    7. Koteja, P.
    (2015). Evolution of basal metabolic rate in bank voles from a multidirectional selection experiment. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20150025. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0025
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Sadowska, J.,
    2. Gębczyński, A. K. and
    3. Konarzewski, M.
    (2013). Basal metabolic rate is positively correlated with parental investment in laboratory mice. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20122576. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2576
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Salin, K.,
    2. Auer, S. K.,
    3. Rey, B.,
    4. Selman, C. and
    5. Metcalfe, N. B.
    (2015). Variation in the link between oxygen consumption and ATP production, and its relevance for animal performance. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 14-22. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Schimpf, N. G.,
    2. Matthews, P. G. D. and
    3. White, C. R.
    (2012). Cockroaches that exchange respiratory gases discontinuously survive food and water restriction. Evolution 66, 597-604. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01456.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Schimpf, N. G.,
    2. Matthews, P. G. D. and
    3. White, C. R.
    (2013). Discontinuous gas exchange exhibition is a heritable trait in speckled cockroaches Nauphoeta cinerea. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 1588-1597. doi:10.1111/jeb.12093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Smit, B. and
    2. McKechnie, A. E.
    (2010). Avian seasonal metabolic variation in a subtropical desert: basal metabolic rates are lower in winter than in summer. Funct. Ecol. 24, 330-339. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01646.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Speakman, J. R.
    (2005). Body size, energy metabolism and lifespan. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 1717-1730. doi:10.1242/jeb.01556
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Stephenson, P. J. and
    2. Racey, P. A.
    (1993). Reproductive energetics of the Tenrecidae (Mammalia, Insectivora). 1. The large-eared tenrec, Geogale aurita. Physiol. Zool. 66, 643-663.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Steyermark, A. C.
    (2002). A high standard metabolic rate constrains juvenile growth. Zoology 105, 147-151. doi:10.1078/0944-2006-00055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. ↵
    1. Stinchcombe, J. R.,
    2. Agrawal, A. F.,
    3. Hohenlohe, P. A.,
    4. Arnold, S. J. and
    5. Blows, M. W.
    (2008). Estimating nonlinear selection gradients using quadratic regression coefficients: double or nothing? Evolution 62, 2435-2440. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00449.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. ↵
    1. Suarez, R. K.
    (2012). Energy and metabolism. Compr. Physiol. 2, 2527-2540. doi:10.1002/cphy.c110009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. ↵
    1. Tieleman, B. I.,
    2. Versteegh, M. A.,
    3. Helm, B. and
    4. Dingemanse, N. J.
    (2009). Quantitative genetics parameters show partial independent evolutionary potential for body mass and metabolism in stonechats from different populations. J. Zool. 279, 129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00597.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Vezina, F.,
    2. Speakman, J. R. and
    3. Williams, T. D.
    (2006). Individually variable energy management strategies in relation to energetic costs of egg production. Ecology 87, 2447-2458.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  57. ↵
    1. White, C. R. and
    2. Kearney, M. R.
    (2013). Determinants of inter-specific variation in basal metabolic rate. J. Comp. Physiol. B Biochem. Syst. Envir. Physiol. 183, 1-26. doi:10.1007/s00360-012-0676-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    1. Wilson, A. J.,
    2. Réale, D.,
    3. Clements, M. N.,
    4. Morrissey, M. M.,
    5. Postma, E.,
    6. Walling, C. A.,
    7. Kruuk, L. E. B. and
    8. Nussey, D. H.
    (2010). An ecologist's guide to the animal model. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 13-26. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01639.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Wone, B.,
    2. Sears, M. W.,
    3. Labocha, M. K.,
    4. Donovan, E. R. and
    5. Hayes, J. P.
    (2009). Genetic variances and covariances of aerobic metabolic rates in laboratory mice. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 3695-3704. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0980
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Wone, B. W. M.,
    2. Madsen, P.,
    3. Donovan, E. R.,
    4. Labocha, M. K.,
    5. Sears, M. W.,
    6. Downs, C. J.,
    7. Sorensen, D. A. and
    8. Hayes, J. P.
    (2015). A strong response to selection on mass-independent maximal metabolic rate without a correlated response in basal metabolic rate. Heredity 114, 419-427. doi:10.1038/hdy.2014.122
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zub, K.,
    2. Borowski, Z.,
    3. Szafranska, P. A.,
    4. Wieczorek, M. and
    5. Konarzewski, M.
    (2014). Lower body mass and higher metabolic rate enhance winter survival in root voles, Microtus oeconomus. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 113, 297-309. doi:10.1111/bij.12306
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
View Abstract
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Keywords

  • Metabolism
  • Evolution
  • Selection
  • Quantitative genetics

 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.
Understanding variation in metabolic rate
(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
COMMENTARY
Understanding variation in metabolic rate
Amanda K. Pettersen, Dustin J. Marshall, Craig R. White
Journal of Experimental Biology 2018 221: jeb166876 doi: 10.1242/jeb.166876 Published 11 January 2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
COMMENTARY
Understanding variation in metabolic rate
Amanda K. Pettersen, Dustin J. Marshall, Craig R. White
Journal of Experimental Biology 2018 221: jeb166876 doi: 10.1242/jeb.166876 Published 11 January 2018

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
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • The breeder's equation as a framework
    • Univariate selection on metabolic rate
    • Genetic variation in metabolic rates
    • Multivariate breeder's equation
    • Metabolic rate is more than a single trait
    • Multivariate selection on metabolic rates
    • Conclusions and future directions
    • Acknowledgements
    • FOOTNOTES
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Do endotherms have thermal performance curves?
  • Thermal robustness of biomechanical processes
  • Help, there are ‘omics’ in my comparative physiology!
Show more COMMENTARY

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Predicting the Future: Species Survival in a Changing World

Read our new special issue exploring the significant role of experimental biology in assessing and predicting the susceptibility or resilience of species to future, human-induced environmental change.


Adam Hardy wins the 2020 Journal of Experimental Biology Outstanding Paper Prize

Congratulations to winner Adam Hardy for his work showing that goby fins are as touch sensitive as primate fingertips. Read Adam’s paper and find out more about the 12 papers nominated for the award.


Stark trade-offs and elegant solutions in arthropod visual systems

Many elegant eye specializations that evolved in response to visual challenges continue to be discovered. A new Review by Meece et al. summarises exciting solutions evolved by insects and other arthropods in response to specific visual challenges.


Head bobbing gives pigeons a sense of perspective

Pigeons might look goofy with their head-bobbing walk, but it turns out that the ungainly head manoeuvre allows the birds to judge distance.

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