Paper detail

Testing metabolic scaling theory using intraspecific allometries in Antarctic microarthropods

Quantitative scaling relationships among body mass, temperature and metabolic rate of organisms are still controversial, while resolution may be further complicated through the use of different and possibly inappropriate approaches to statistical analysis. We propose the application of a modelling strategy based on Akaike's information criteria and non-linear model fitting (nlm). Accordingly, we collated and modelled available data at intraspecific level on the individual standard metabolic rate of Antarctic microarthropods as a function of body mass (M), temperature (T), species identity (S) and high rank taxa to which species belong (G) and tested predictions from Metabolic Scaling Theory. We also performed allometric analysis based on logarithmic transformations (lm). Conclusions from lm and nlm approaches were different. Best-supported models from lm incorporated T, M and S. The estimates of the allometric scaling exponent b linking body mass and metabolic rate indicated no interspecific difference and resulted in a value of 0.696 +/- 0.105 (mean +/- 95% CI). In contrast, the four best-supported nlm models suggested that both the scaling exponent and activation energy significantly vary across the high rank taxa to which species belong, with mean values of b ranging from about 0.6 to 0.8. We therefore reached two conclusions: 1) published analyses of arthropod metabolism based on logarithmic data may be biased by data transformation; 2) non-linear models applied to Antarctic microarthropod metabolic rate suggest that intraspecific scaling of standard metabolic rate in Antarctic microarthropods is highly variable and can be characterised by scaling exponents that greatly vary within taxa, which may have biased previous interspecific comparisons that neglected intraspecific variability.

preprint2009arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.