Affordable Access

Access to the full text

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

Authors
  • Halsey, Lewis G.1
  • Killen, Shaun S.2
  • Clark, Timothy D.3
  • Norin, Tommy2
  • 1 University of Roehampton, Department of Life Sciences, Holybourne Avenue, London, SW15 4JD, UK , London (United Kingdom)
  • 2 University of Glasgow, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health, and Comparative Medicine, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK , Glasgow (United Kingdom)
  • 3 Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Geelong, VIC, 3216, Australia , Geelong (Australia)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Publication Date
Mar 15, 2018
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
405–415
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1007/s11160-018-9516-3
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
License
Green

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 predictions from these models to experimental data from the literature. First, we investigated the robustness of aerobic scope calculations as a function of varying SMR when MMR is fixed, and vice versa. While FAS is unexpectedly robust to variability in SMR, even in species with low aerobic scopes, AAS is less sensitive to variation in SMR than is FAS. However, where variation in MMR is the main concern, FAS is more robust than AAS. Our findings highlight the equal importance of minimising variability in MMR, rather than just the variability in SMR, to obtain robust aerobic scope estimates. Second, we analysed metabolic rate accounting for locomotor speed and body mass for swimming fish. The interactions among these factors in relation to AAS and FAS are complex and the appropriate metric is dependent on the specific eco-physiological context of the research question. We conclude with qualified recommendations for using and interpreting AAS and FAS.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times