Literature DB >> 16730368

Costs of encephalization: the energy trade-off hypothesis tested on birds.

Karin Isler1, Carel van Schaik.   

Abstract

Costs and benefits of encephalization are a major topic of debate in the study of primate and human evolution. Comparative studies provide an opportunity to test the validity of a hypothesis as a general principle, rather than it being a special case in primate or hominid evolution. If a population evolves a larger brain, the metabolic costs of doing so must be paid for by either an increased energy turnover (direct metabolic constraint) or by a trade-off with other energetically expensive costs of body maintenance, locomotion, or reproduction, here referred to as the energy trade-off hypothesis, an extension of the influential Expensive Tissue Hypothesis of Aiello and Wheeler (1995, Curr. Anthropol. 36, 199-221). In the present paper, we tested these hypotheses on birds using raw species values, family means, and independent contrasts analysis to account for phylogenetic influences. First, we tested whether basal metabolic rates are correlated with brain mass or any other variable of interest. This not being the case, we examined various trade-offs between brain mass and the mass of other expensive tissues such as gut mass, which is approximated by gut length or diet quality. Only weak support was found for this original Expensive Tissue Hypothesis in birds. However, other energy allocations such as locomotor mode and reproductive strategy may also be reduced to shunt energy to an enlarged brain. We found a significantly negative correlation between brain mass and pectoral muscle mass, which averages 18% of body mass in birds and is indicative of their relative costs of flight. Reproductive costs, on the other hand, are positively correlated with brain mass in birds. An increase in brain mass may allow birds to devote more energy to reproduction, although not through an increase in their own energy budget as in mammals, but through direct provisioning of their offspring. The trade-off between locomotor costs and brain mass in birds lets us conclude that an analogous effect could have played a role in the evolution of a larger brain in human evolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16730368     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Evol        ISSN: 0047-2484            Impact factor:   3.895


  56 in total

1.  Does investment into "expensive" tissue compromise anti-parasitic defence? Testes size, brain size and parasite diversity in rodent hosts.

Authors:  Frédéric Bordes; Serge Morand; Boris R Krasnov
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Metabolic cost as a unifying principle governing neuronal biophysics.

Authors:  Andrea Hasenstaub; Stephani Otte; Edward Callaway; Terrence J Sejnowski
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Dietary quality and encephalization in platyrrhine primates.

Authors:  Kari L Allen; Richard F Kay
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 4.  Evolution of the couple cytochrome c and cytochrome c oxidase in primates.

Authors:  Denis Pierron; Derek E Wildman; Maik Hüttemann; Thierry Letellier; Lawrence I Grossman
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Brain size is correlated with endangerment status in mammals.

Authors:  Eric S Abelson
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  Contextualising primate origins--an ecomorphological framework.

Authors:  Christophe Soligo; Jeroen B Smaers
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.610

7.  Metabolic costs of brain size evolution.

Authors:  Karin Isler; Carel P van Schaik
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 3.703

8.  Environmental Influences on Neuromorphology in the Non-Native Starling Sturnus vulgaris.

Authors:  Adam P A Cardilini; Sarah Micallef; Valerie R Bishop; Craig D H Sherman; Simone L Meddle; Katherine L Buchanan
Journal:  Brain Behav Evol       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 1.808

9.  Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)?

Authors:  Karin Isler; Carel P Van Schaik
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 10.  Social learning and evolution: the cultural intelligence hypothesis.

Authors:  Carel P van Schaik; Judith M Burkart
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 6.237

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.