Scaling of energetic cost of running to body size in mammals

Taylor, Curtis R.; Schmidt‐Nielsen, Knut; Raab, JL

doi:10.1152/ajplegacy.1970.219.4.1104

Cited by 540 publications

(375 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

340

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This does not imply that there were differences in the costs per unit distance between the groups (COT). At all ambient temperatures COT were approximately 1.2 kJ/km, (at an average body mass of 27.6 g) which is comparable to the COT 1.19 kJ/km obtained by forced locomotion on a treadmill by Taylor et al (for a 21 g house mouse) (Taylor et al 1970). COT is related to body mass, with higher costs of transport at higher body mass.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…At low ambient temperature resting homeotherms elevate metabolic levels to compensate for elevated heat loss, while at high ambient temperatures metabolic rates should be low to avoid hyperthermia (Mount 1966;Tieleman et al 2002). This temperature dependence of metabolic rate becomes more complicated when animals exhibit high locomotor activity, which is known to be energetically expensive (Taylor et al 1970). In the cold, high levels of activity may be favourable if activity-related metabolic costs can be used for temperature regulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wheel-running activity and energy metabolism in relation to ambient temperature in mice selected for high wheel-running activity

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wheel-running activity and energy metabolism in relation to ambient temperature in mice selected for high wheel-running activity Vaanholt, Lobke M.; Garland, Theodore; Daan, Serge; Visser, G. Henk; Garland Jr., Theodore; Heldmaier, G. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 12-05-2018Abstract Interrelationships between ambient temperature, activity, and energy metabolism were explored in mice that had been selectively bred for high spontaneous wheel-running activity and their randombred controls. Animals were exposed to three different ambient temperatures (10, 20 and 30°C) and wheelrunning activity and metabolic rate were measured simultaneously. Wheel-running activity was decreased at low ambient temperatures in all animals and was increased in selected animals compared to controls at 20 and 30°C. Resting metabolic rate (RMR) and daily energy expenditure (DEE) decreased with increasing ambient temperature. RMR did not differ between control and selected mice, but mass-specific DEE was increased in selected mice. The cost of activity (measured as the slope of the relationship between metabolic rate and running speed) was similar at all ambient temperatures and in control and selected mice. Heat generated by running apparently did not substitute for heat necessary for thermoregulation. The overall estimate of running costs was 1.2 kJ/km for control mice and selected mice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wheel-running activity and energy metabolism in relation to ambient temperature in mice selected for high wheel-running activity

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conveniently, this implies that they will be simple. Many simple models of running, swimming and flight were presented at the first Scaling Conference (Pedley, 1977), on which this paper builds.In the decades preceding the first Scaling Conference, measurements of metabolic rate during locomotion had been greatly facilitated by the introduction of methods using treadmills (Taylor et al, 1970), wind tunnels (Tucker, 1968) and water tunnels (Brett, 1964). Allometric exponents relating the measured energy cost of locomotion to body mass had been calculated by Taylor et al (1970) for running; by Tucker (1970) for running and flight; and for swimming by SchmidtNielsen (1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Allometric exponents relating the measured energy cost of locomotion to body mass had been calculated by Taylor et al (1970) for running; by Tucker (1970) for running and flight; and for swimming by SchmidtNielsen (1972). Allometric equations in more recent papers are referred to in later sections of this one.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Models and the scaling of energy costs for locomotion

Alexander

2005

Journal of Experimental Biology

191

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I look at the scaling of the energy costs of locomotion, and ask whether we can explain what we observe. The explanations must depend on mathematical models. If we cannot formulate a convincing model that predicts a scaling rule reasonably accurately, we have failed to explain the rule. The reverse is unfortunately not true; a model that predicts a scaling rule correctly does not guarantee that our explanation is correct, because several models may predict the same rule.My interest here is in widely applicable scaling rules; for example in rules that will predict the scaling of running over the range from small rodents to elephants, or of flight from sparrows to swans. Mice are not scale models of elephants, and do not move like tiny elephants, and sparrows are not miniature swans. The models will have to be very general, incorporating little specific anatomical or kinematic detail. Conveniently, this implies that they will be simple. Many simple models of running, swimming and flight were presented at the first Scaling Conference (Pedley, 1977), on which this paper builds.In the decades preceding the first Scaling Conference, measurements of metabolic rate during locomotion had been greatly facilitated by the introduction of methods using treadmills (Taylor et al., 1970), wind tunnels (Tucker, 1968) and water tunnels (Brett, 1964). Allometric exponents relating the measured energy cost of locomotion to body mass had been calculated by Taylor et al. (1970) for running; by Tucker (1970) for running and flight; and for swimming by SchmidtNielsen (1972). Allometric equations in more recent papers are referred to in later sections of this one.Because muscles do not work with uniform efficiency, it is much more difficult to devise a model that predicts the metabolic energy cost of locomotion than one that predicts mechanical work. In contrast, oxygen consumption (and hence metabolic power) can be measured directly, whereas determination of mechanical work in locomotion generally involves calculations subject to a good deal of uncertainty. Thus comparisons between theoretical and observed energy costs are not easy. It is the metabolic cost of locomotion, rather than the mechanical work, which is important for the animal's energy budget.Dynamic similarity I will refer frequently to the concept of dynamic similarity To achieve the required generality, models designed to predict scaling relationships for diverse groups of animals generally need to be simple. An argument based on considerations of dynamic similarity predicts correctly that the mechanical cost of transport for running [power/(body mass ϫ speed)] will be independent of body mass; but measurements of oxygen consumption for running birds and mammals show that the metabolic cost of transport is proportional to (body mass) −0.32 . Thus the leg muscles seem to work more efficiently in larger animals. A model that treats birds as fixed wing aircraft predicts that the mechanical power required for flight at the maximum range speed will be proportiona...

show abstract

“…As a measure for the energy efficiency, we use cost of transportation (COT ) which is widely used in the literature (see [27][28][29]). This dimensionless index can be calculated as follows:…”

Section: Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Piecewise linear spine for speed–energy efficiency trade-off in quadruped robots

Khoramshahi

Bidgoly

Shafiee

et al. 2013

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• Effects of flexible spine on performance of bounding quadrupeds are studied.• Superiority of nonlinear spines over linear ones is shown.• High performance is explained by energy storage-release profile of nonlinear springs.• Results are justified through a behavioral analogy with biology. a r t i c l e i n f o t r a c tWe compare the effects of linear and piecewise linear compliant spines on locomotion performance of quadruped robots in terms of energy efficiency and locomotion speed through a set of simulations and experiments. We first present a simple locomotion system that behaviorally resembles a bounding quadruped with flexible spine. Then, we show that robots with linear compliant spines have higher locomotion speed and lower cost of transportation in comparison with those with rigid spine. However, in linear case, optimal speed and minimum cost of transportation are attained at very different spine compliance values. Moreover, it is verified that fast and energy efficient locomotion can be achieved together when the spine flexibility is piecewise linear. Furthermore, it is shown that the robot with piecewise linear spine is more robust against changes in the load it carries. Superiority of piecewise linear spines over linear and rigid ones is additionally confirmed by simulating a quadruped robot in Webots and experiments on a crawling two-parts robot with flexible connection.

show abstract

Scaling of energetic cost of running to body size in mammals

Cited by 540 publications

References 9 publications

Wheel-running activity and energy metabolism in relation to ambient temperature in mice selected for high wheel-running activity

Wheel-running activity and energy metabolism in relation to ambient temperature in mice selected for high wheel-running activity

Models and the scaling of energy costs for locomotion

Piecewise linear spine for speed–energy efficiency trade-off in quadruped robots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About