Is complex allometry in field metabolic rates of mammals a statistical artifact?

Recent reports indicate that field metabolic rates (FMRs) of mammals conform to a pattern of complex allometry in which the exponent in a simple, two-parameter power equation increases steadily as a dependent function of body mass. The reports were based, however, on indirect analyses performed on l...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology Molecular & integrative physiology, 2017-01, Vol.203, p.322-327
Main Author: Packard, Gary C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Allometry
Animals
Animals, Wild - growth & development
Animals, Wild - physiology
Body Size
Databases, Factual
Energy Metabolism
Field metabolic rates
Logarithms
Mammals
Mammals - growth & development
Mammals - physiology
Models, Biological
Nonlinear regression
Scaling
Species Specificity
Statistics as Topic
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recent reports indicate that field metabolic rates (FMRs) of mammals conform to a pattern of complex allometry in which the exponent in a simple, two-parameter power equation increases steadily as a dependent function of body mass. The reports were based, however, on indirect analyses performed on logarithmic transformations of the original data. I re-examined values for FMR and body mass for 114 species of mammal by the conventional approach to allometric analysis (to illustrate why the approach is unreliable) and by linear and nonlinear regression on untransformed variables (to illustrate the power and versatility of newer analytical methods). The best of the regression models fitted directly to untransformed observations is a three-parameter power equation with multiplicative, lognormal, heteroscedastic error and an allometric exponent of 0.82. The mean function is a good fit to data in graphical display. The significant intercept in the model may simply have gone undetected in prior analyses because conventional allometry assumes implicitly that the intercept is zero; or the intercept may be a spurious finding resulting from bias introduced by the haphazard sampling that underlies “exploratory” analyses like the one reported here. The aforementioned issues can be resolved only by gathering new data specifically intended to address the question of scaling of FMR with body mass in mammals. However, there is no support for the concept of complex allometry in the relationship between FMR and body size in mammals.
ISSN:1095-6433
1531-4332
DOI:10.1016/j.cbpa.2016.10.005