Oxygen consumption and gill surface area in Mesidothea entomon (L.) (isopoda, crustacea)

Beyond the ‘3/4‐power law’: variation in the intra‐and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals

“…Ellenby, 1951 ;Bertalanffy, 1957 ;Hemmingsen, 1960 ;Szarski, 1964;Gould, 1966 ;Hughes & Hughes, 1986 ;Post & Lee, 1996 ;Vollmer & Edmunds, 2000), though matches between the scaling of respiratory surface areas and rates of oxygen consumption have not always been found (e.g. Babula, Bielawski & Sobieski, 1978 ;Hillman & Withers, 1979;Hughes, 1984 ;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Johnson & Rees, 1988 ;Rombough, 1988). In any case, explanations based on simple Euclidean geometry (surface area/volume ratios) fell into disfavour when it became commonly accepted that metabolic rate scales as M 3/4 , not as M 2/3 , among species of different body size.…”

Beyond the ‘3/4‐power law’: variation in the intra‐and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals

“…Ellenby, 1951 ;Bertalanffy, 1957 ;Hemmingsen, 1960 ;Szarski, 1964;Gould, 1966 ;Hughes & Hughes, 1986 ;Post & Lee, 1996 ;Vollmer & Edmunds, 2000), though matches between the scaling of respiratory surface areas and rates of oxygen consumption have not always been found (e.g. Babula, Bielawski & Sobieski, 1978 ;Hillman & Withers, 1979;Hughes, 1984 ;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Johnson & Rees, 1988 ;Rombough, 1988). In any case, explanations based on simple Euclidean geometry (surface area/volume ratios) fell into disfavour when it became commonly accepted that metabolic rate scales as M 3/4 , not as M 2/3 , among species of different body size.…”

The multi‐mechanistic basis of metabolic scaling

“…However, these associations appear to be driven by variation in the resource demand of growth, which in turn is the result of inter-population variation in sizespecific predation (Glazier et al, 2011;Glazier, Borrelli, & Hoffman, 2020a: see also the section on "Evolution of biological scaling"). Furthermore, in other species, the ontogenetic scaling of metabolic rate and gill surface area may not exactly match (see Babula et al, 1978;Kim, 2022;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Prinzing et al, 2023;Rombough & Moroz, 1997). This may be in part due to oxygen supply being affected by both gill surface area and ventilation frequency.…”

Beyond the ‘3/4‐power law’: variation in the intra‐and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals

“…Ellenby, 1951 ;Bertalanffy, 1957 ;Hemmingsen, 1960 ;Szarski, 1964;Gould, 1966 ;Hughes & Hughes, 1986 ;Post & Lee, 1996 ;Vollmer & Edmunds, 2000), though matches between the scaling of respiratory surface areas and rates of oxygen consumption have not always been found (e.g. Babula, Bielawski & Sobieski, 1978 ;Hillman & Withers, 1979;Hughes, 1984 ;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Johnson & Rees, 1988 ;Rombough, 1988). In any case, explanations based on simple Euclidean geometry (surface area/volume ratios) fell into disfavour when it became commonly accepted that metabolic rate scales as M 3/4 , not as M 2/3 , among species of different body size.…”

The multi‐mechanistic basis of metabolic scaling

“…However, these associations appear to be driven by variation in the resource demand of growth, which in turn is the result of inter-population variation in sizespecific predation (Glazier et al, 2011;Glazier, Borrelli, & Hoffman, 2020a: see also the section on "Evolution of biological scaling"). Furthermore, in other species, the ontogenetic scaling of metabolic rate and gill surface area may not exactly match (see Babula et al, 1978;Kim, 2022;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Prinzing et al, 2023;Rombough & Moroz, 1997). This may be in part due to oxygen supply being affected by both gill surface area and ventilation frequency.…”

Beyond the ‘3/4‐power law’: variation in the intra‐and interspecific scaling of metabolic rate in animals

“…Ellenby, 1951 ;Bertalanffy, 1957 ;Hemmingsen, 1960 ;Szarski, 1964;Gould, 1966 ;Hughes & Hughes, 1986 ;Post & Lee, 1996 ;Vollmer & Edmunds, 2000), though matches between the scaling of respiratory surface areas and rates of oxygen consumption have not always been found (e.g. Babula, Bielawski & Sobieski, 1978 ;Hillman & Withers, 1979;Hughes, 1984 ;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Johnson & Rees, 1988 ;Rombough, 1988). In any case, explanations based on simple Euclidean geometry (surface area/volume ratios) fell into disfavour when it became commonly accepted that metabolic rate scales as M 3/4 , not as M 2/3 , among species of different body size.…”

The multi‐mechanistic basis of metabolic scaling

“…However, these associations appear to be driven by variation in the resource demand of growth, which in turn is the result of inter-population variation in sizespecific predation (Glazier et al, 2011;Glazier, Borrelli, & Hoffman, 2020a: see also the section on "Evolution of biological scaling"). Furthermore, in other species, the ontogenetic scaling of metabolic rate and gill surface area may not exactly match (see Babula et al, 1978;Kim, 2022;Oikawa & Itazawa, 1985;Prinzing et al, 2023;Rombough & Moroz, 1997). This may be in part due to oxygen supply being affected by both gill surface area and ventilation frequency.…”