2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11160-018-9516-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring key issues of aerobic scope interpretation in ectotherms: absolute versus factorial

Abstract: Aerobic scope represents an animal's capacity to increase its aerobic metabolic rate above maintenance levels (i.e. the difference between standard (SMR) and maximum (MMR) metabolic rates). Aerobic scope data can be presented in absolute or factorial terms (AAS or FAS, respectively). However, the robustness of these calculations to noise or variability in measures of metabolic rate can influence subsequent interpretations of patterns in the data. We explored this issue using simple models and we compared the p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
46
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
(73 reference statements)
1
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All model assumptions were tested and verified, and the statistical results reported below are the values from the full models including all interactions. Our results for AAS (Table 2, Figure 2C) versus FAS (Supplementary Table 3, Supplementary Figure 1) are largely similar, and we only present the results for AAS, which is considered to be more informative and robust (Halsey et al 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…All model assumptions were tested and verified, and the statistical results reported below are the values from the full models including all interactions. Our results for AAS (Table 2, Figure 2C) versus FAS (Supplementary Table 3, Supplementary Figure 1) are largely similar, and we only present the results for AAS, which is considered to be more informative and robust (Halsey et al 2018).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…All model assumptions were tested and verified, and the statistical results reported below are the values from the full models including all interactions. Our results for AAS (Table ; Figure c) versus FAS (Table S3; Figure S1) are largely similar, and we only present the results for AAS, which is considered to be more informative and robust (Halsey, Killen, Clark, & Norin, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…Conversely, increased maintenance metabolism costs would necessitate increased foraging success, which is already quite low in the study population 33 and an increased demand could lead to starvation 34 . Interestingly, supposed changes in ṀO 2Min were not reflected in absolute or factorial aerobic scope, possibly owing to variability in ṀO 2Min and ṀO 2Max and because FAS and AAS estimates were low relative to other fishes 35 . Whilst a lack of correlation between ṀO 2Min and ṀO 2Max across individuals is possible 36 , its absence suggests the possibility of measurement error, likely in ṀO 2Max for which best practice has not been established in sharks 37 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%