The effects of temperature, size, season and activity on the metabolic rate of the amphipod, Talorchestia capensis (crustaea, talitridae)

Flight capacity drives circadian patterns of metabolic rate and alters resource dynamics

“…Among ectotherms, circadian patterns in metabolic rate are displayed by aquatic invertebrates (Chacón et al, 2003; Rosas et al, 1992; but see Diawol et al, 2016), by fishes (Kim et al, 1997; Ross & McKinney, 1988; Svendsen et al, 2014), and by reptiles (Birchard et al, 2006; Blem & Killeen, 1993; da Cruz et al, 2008; Klein et al, 2006; Roe et al, 2004, 2005). In terrestrial arthropods, circadian rhythmicity in SMR has been exhibited by insects (Banks et al, 1975; Crozier, 1979; Shipp & Otton, 1976; Woodring & Clifford, 1986), spiders (Humphreys, 1977; but see Stoltey & Shillington, 2009), and crustaceans (Reddy & Bhagyalakshmi, 1994; Van Senus, 1985). In this study, flight‐capable (LW[f]), but not flight‐incapable (SW and LW[h]), G. lineaticeps exhibited circadian rhythmicity in SMR (Figure 1).…”

Flight capacity drives circadian patterns of metabolic rate and alters resource dynamics

“…Among ectotherms, circadian patterns in metabolic rate are displayed by aquatic invertebrates (Chacón et al, 2003; Rosas et al, 1992; but see Diawol et al, 2016), by fishes (Kim et al, 1997; Ross & McKinney, 1988; Svendsen et al, 2014), and by reptiles (Birchard et al, 2006; Blem & Killeen, 1993; da Cruz et al, 2008; Klein et al, 2006; Roe et al, 2004, 2005). In terrestrial arthropods, circadian rhythmicity in SMR has been exhibited by insects (Banks et al, 1975; Crozier, 1979; Shipp & Otton, 1976; Woodring & Clifford, 1986), spiders (Humphreys, 1977; but see Stoltey & Shillington, 2009), and crustaceans (Reddy & Bhagyalakshmi, 1994; Van Senus, 1985). In this study, flight‐capable (LW[f]), but not flight‐incapable (SW and LW[h]), G. lineaticeps exhibited circadian rhythmicity in SMR (Figure 1).…”

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

“…Gillooly et al, 2001) is often not correct. Other environmental factors may also be influential, such as salinity (Dehnel, 1960;Farmer & Beamish, 1969 ;Rao, 1971), oxygen availability (Atkinson, 1973), water availability (Chen & Li, 2003), light intensity (Buikema, 1972;Finn et al, 2002), season (Berg & Ockelmann, 1959 ;Paloheimo & Dickie, 1966 ;Newell & Pye, 1971;Stickle, 1973 ;Knight & Simmons, 1975;Marsden, 1979 ;Dye & McGwynne, 1980 ;Van Senus, 1985), habitat (Navarro, Ortega & Iglesias, 1987), geographical location (Barlow, 1961;Walsh & Somero, 1981), nutritional level (Marsden, Newell & Ahsanullah, 1973 ;Newell, Roy & Armitage, 1976 ;Lane & Lawrence, 1979;Armitage & Wall, 1982), parasitic infection (Duerr, 1967), and exposure to air versus water, as in intertidal animals (Newell, Ahsanullah & Pye, 1972 ;Spicer & Taylor, 1987;Shick et al, 1979;Shick, 1991). Oikawa et al (1991) have also suggested that larval fish hatched from pelagic eggs exhibit higher metabolic scaling exponents than those hatched from demersal (benthic) eggs.…”

Interactive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on metabolic rate

“…Scaling exponents tend to be higher in cooler environments, which may be partly owing to shifts in the relative influence of volume-versus surface arearelated metabolic processes, as predicted by the MLBH [23,24]. However, exponents below two-thirds in warm environments require further explanation [144,[148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155] body size and season variable metabolic scaling may vary with season, possibly because of changes in size-specific production costs (owing to changing rates of growth and reproduction) or activity levels [156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] body size and abiotic environmental factors temperature negative for resting, but could be positive for active metabolic rate mass-scaling exponents for metabolism tend to decrease with increasing temperature, which may be owing to shifts in the relative influence of volume-versus surface area-related metabolic processes, as predicted by the MLBH [23,24].…”

Flight capacity drives circadian patterns of metabolic rate and alters resource dynamics

“…Among ectotherms, circadian patterns in metabolic rate are displayed by aquatic invertebrates (Chacón et al, 2003; Rosas et al, 1992; but see Diawol et al, 2016), by fishes (Kim et al, 1997; Ross & McKinney, 1988; Svendsen et al, 2014), and by reptiles (Birchard et al, 2006; Blem & Killeen, 1993; da Cruz et al, 2008; Klein et al, 2006; Roe et al, 2004, 2005). In terrestrial arthropods, circadian rhythmicity in SMR has been exhibited by insects (Banks et al, 1975; Crozier, 1979; Shipp & Otton, 1976; Woodring & Clifford, 1986), spiders (Humphreys, 1977; but see Stoltey & Shillington, 2009), and crustaceans (Reddy & Bhagyalakshmi, 1994; Van Senus, 1985). In this study, flight‐capable (LW[f]), but not flight‐incapable (SW and LW[h]), G. lineaticeps exhibited circadian rhythmicity in SMR (Figure 1).…”

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

“…Gillooly et al, 2001) is often not correct. Other environmental factors may also be influential, such as salinity (Dehnel, 1960;Farmer & Beamish, 1969 ;Rao, 1971), oxygen availability (Atkinson, 1973), water availability (Chen & Li, 2003), light intensity (Buikema, 1972;Finn et al, 2002), season (Berg & Ockelmann, 1959 ;Paloheimo & Dickie, 1966 ;Newell & Pye, 1971;Stickle, 1973 ;Knight & Simmons, 1975;Marsden, 1979 ;Dye & McGwynne, 1980 ;Van Senus, 1985), habitat (Navarro, Ortega & Iglesias, 1987), geographical location (Barlow, 1961;Walsh & Somero, 1981), nutritional level (Marsden, Newell & Ahsanullah, 1973 ;Newell, Roy & Armitage, 1976 ;Lane & Lawrence, 1979;Armitage & Wall, 1982), parasitic infection (Duerr, 1967), and exposure to air versus water, as in intertidal animals (Newell, Ahsanullah & Pye, 1972 ;Spicer & Taylor, 1987;Shick et al, 1979;Shick, 1991). Oikawa et al (1991) have also suggested that larval fish hatched from pelagic eggs exhibit higher metabolic scaling exponents than those hatched from demersal (benthic) eggs.…”

Interactive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on metabolic rate

“…Scaling exponents tend to be higher in cooler environments, which may be partly owing to shifts in the relative influence of volume-versus surface arearelated metabolic processes, as predicted by the MLBH [23,24]. However, exponents below two-thirds in warm environments require further explanation [144,[148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155] body size and season variable metabolic scaling may vary with season, possibly because of changes in size-specific production costs (owing to changing rates of growth and reproduction) or activity levels [156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] body size and abiotic environmental factors temperature negative for resting, but could be positive for active metabolic rate mass-scaling exponents for metabolism tend to decrease with increasing temperature, which may be owing to shifts in the relative influence of volume-versus surface area-related metabolic processes, as predicted by the MLBH [23,24].…”

Flight capacity drives circadian patterns of metabolic rate and alters resource dynamics

“…Among ectotherms, circadian patterns in metabolic rate are displayed by aquatic invertebrates (Chacón et al, 2003; Rosas et al, 1992; but see Diawol et al, 2016), by fishes (Kim et al, 1997; Ross & McKinney, 1988; Svendsen et al, 2014), and by reptiles (Birchard et al, 2006; Blem & Killeen, 1993; da Cruz et al, 2008; Klein et al, 2006; Roe et al, 2004, 2005). In terrestrial arthropods, circadian rhythmicity in SMR has been exhibited by insects (Banks et al, 1975; Crozier, 1979; Shipp & Otton, 1976; Woodring & Clifford, 1986), spiders (Humphreys, 1977; but see Stoltey & Shillington, 2009), and crustaceans (Reddy & Bhagyalakshmi, 1994; Van Senus, 1985). In this study, flight‐capable (LW[f]), but not flight‐incapable (SW and LW[h]), G. lineaticeps exhibited circadian rhythmicity in SMR (Figure 1).…”

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

“…Gillooly et al, 2001) is often not correct. Other environmental factors may also be influential, such as salinity (Dehnel, 1960;Farmer & Beamish, 1969 ;Rao, 1971), oxygen availability (Atkinson, 1973), water availability (Chen & Li, 2003), light intensity (Buikema, 1972;Finn et al, 2002), season (Berg & Ockelmann, 1959 ;Paloheimo & Dickie, 1966 ;Newell & Pye, 1971;Stickle, 1973 ;Knight & Simmons, 1975;Marsden, 1979 ;Dye & McGwynne, 1980 ;Van Senus, 1985), habitat (Navarro, Ortega & Iglesias, 1987), geographical location (Barlow, 1961;Walsh & Somero, 1981), nutritional level (Marsden, Newell & Ahsanullah, 1973 ;Newell, Roy & Armitage, 1976 ;Lane & Lawrence, 1979;Armitage & Wall, 1982), parasitic infection (Duerr, 1967), and exposure to air versus water, as in intertidal animals (Newell, Ahsanullah & Pye, 1972 ;Spicer & Taylor, 1987;Shick et al, 1979;Shick, 1991). Oikawa et al (1991) have also suggested that larval fish hatched from pelagic eggs exhibit higher metabolic scaling exponents than those hatched from demersal (benthic) eggs.…”

Interactive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on metabolic rate

“…Scaling exponents tend to be higher in cooler environments, which may be partly owing to shifts in the relative influence of volume-versus surface arearelated metabolic processes, as predicted by the MLBH [23,24]. However, exponents below two-thirds in warm environments require further explanation [144,[148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155] body size and season variable metabolic scaling may vary with season, possibly because of changes in size-specific production costs (owing to changing rates of growth and reproduction) or activity levels [156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167] body size and abiotic environmental factors temperature negative for resting, but could be positive for active metabolic rate mass-scaling exponents for metabolism tend to decrease with increasing temperature, which may be owing to shifts in the relative influence of volume-versus surface area-related metabolic processes, as predicted by the MLBH [23,24].…”