| Literature DB >> 27382465 |
Henrik Baktoft1, Lene Jacobsen1, Christian Skov1, Anders Koed1, Niels Jepsen1, Søren Berg1, Mikkel Boel1, Kim Aarestrup1, Jon C Svendsen2.
Abstract
Ongoing climate change is affecting animal physiology in many parts of the world. Using metabolism, the oxygen- and capacity-limitation of thermal tolerance (OCLTT) hypothesis provides a tool to predict the responses of ectothermic animals to variation in temperature, oxygen availability and pH in the aquatic environment. The hypothesis remains controversial, however, and has been questioned in several studies. A positive relationship between aerobic metabolic scope and animal activity would be consistent with the OCLTT but has rarely been tested. Moreover, the performance model and the allocation model predict positive and negative relationships, respectively, between standard metabolic rate and activity. Finally, animal activity could be affected by individual morphology because of covariation with cost of transport. Therefore, we hypothesized that individual variation in activity is correlated with variation in metabolism and morphology. To test this prediction, we captured 23 wild European perch (Perca fluviatilis) in a lake, tagged them with telemetry transmitters, measured standard and maximal metabolic rates, aerobic metabolic scope and fineness ratio and returned the fish to the lake to quantify individual in situ activity levels. Metabolic rates were measured using intermittent flow respirometry, whereas the activity assay involved high-resolution telemetry providing positions every 30 s over 12 days. We found no correlation between individual metabolic traits and activity, whereas individual fineness ratio correlated with activity. Independent of body length, and consistent with physics theory, slender fish maintained faster mean and maximal swimming speeds, but this variation did not result in a larger area (in square metres) explored per 24 h. Testing assumptions and predictions of recent conceptual models, our study indicates that individual metabolism is not a strong determinant of animal activity, in contrast to individual morphology, which is correlated with in situ activity patterns.Entities:
Keywords: Aerobic metabolic scope; OCLTT hypothesis; fineness ratio; morphology; performance and allocation models; standard metabolic rate
Year: 2016 PMID: 27382465 PMCID: PMC4922247 DOI: 10.1093/conphys/cov055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Conserv Physiol ISSN: 2051-1434 Impact factor: 3.079
Figure 1:Metabolic Q12 rate (; in milligrams of oxygen per kilogram per hour) over time (in hours) in European perch (Perca fluviatilis) measured using intermittent flow respirometry. A chase protocol was applied to elicit maximal metabolic rate (MMR; red datum), followed by declining values. A linear regression line was fitted to the first five data points recorded immediately after the chase protocol (blue line), and the slope was used to estimate the rate of recovery. Standard metabolic rate (SMR) was estimated as the average of the lowest 10th percentile of all measurements throughout the period of data collection (22 h; dashed line). After 3 h of acclimation, the average was recorded over 19 h (grey line). Routine was recorded as the mean during the last 4 h of respirometer confinement (red line). Likewise, the spontaneous minimal (green datum) and maximal (blue datum) values were measured during the last 4 h of respirometer confinement. Aerobic metabolic scope (AMS) was estimated as the difference between MMR and SMR (i.e. red datum and dashed line), whereas spontaneous aerobic metabolic scope (in milligrams of oxygen per kilogram per hour) was estimated as the difference between the spontaneous minimal and maximal (i.e. between the green and blue data points).
Figure 2:Overview of study lake, telemetry system and example data from test tracks (left) and a 24 h track from a single fish used in the study (right). Green circles indicate positions of the eight hydrophones; dotted areas show the extent of emergent macrophytes (Tyhpa latifolia); and dotted lines are depth isopleths, with depth given in metres. Transmitters surgically implanted in the fish emit acoustic signals. When these signals are detected on more than three hydrophones, a position can be calculated using hyperbolic multilateration based on time differences of arrival on each hydrophone (see Baktoft and references therein for further details). Test tracks (left) were obtained by moving two transmitters (blue and red lines) attached to a vertical rod mounted on a boat. True trajectory of the test track (thick grey line) was obtained by a hand-held differential GPS unit held directly above the transmitters.
Figure 3:Visualization of raw data (mean values ± SD) and regression lines obtained from the random intercept linear mixed effects models. Significant regression lines (P < 0.05) are shown in red; non-significant in grey. Fork length (FL) and fineness ratio (FR) correlated positively with one or more of the activity measures. None of the metabolic measures [standard metabolic rate (SMR), maximum metabolic rate (MMR), aerobic metabolic scope (AMS), PCA axes representing other metabolic metrics (MET1–3)] was found to explain a significant amount of variation (Table 2; only SMR and AMS are shown in the figure). Metabolic measures were estimated by respirometry and corrected for body mass variation using analysis of residuals when appropriate.
Model comparisons for the four activity metrics modelled as function of FL and X
| Model | FL | ΔAIC | ΔAIC | ΔAIC | ΔAIC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M0 | n.a. | 5.0 | n.a. | 13.1 | n.a. | 1.9 | n.a. | 1.9 | ||
| M1 | 0.0083* | 0* | 0.026 | 10.1 | 0.94 | 3.9 | 0.0497* | 0* | ||
| M1a | + | FR | 0.24 | 0.6 | 0.0005* | 0* | 0.015* | 0* | 0.37 | 1.2 |
| M1b | + | SMR | 0.40 | 1.3 | 0.50 | 11.6 | 0.80 | 5.8 | 0.39 | 1.2 |
| M1c | + | MMR | 0.47 | 1.5 | 0.76 | 12.0 | 0.45 | 5.3 | 0.32 | 1.0 |
| M1d | + | AMS | 0.35 | 1.1 | 0.65 | 11.9 | 0.38 | 5.1 | 0.21 | 0.4 |
| M1e | + | MET1 | 0.59 | 1.7 | 0.88 | 12.1 | 0.65 | 5.7 | 0.20 | 0.4 |
| M1f | + | MET2 | 0.86 | 2.0 | 0.95 | 12.1 | 0.72 | 5.8 | 0.72 | 1.9 |
| M1g | + | MET3 | 0.30 | 0.9 | 0.74 | 12.0 | 0.33 | 4.9 | 0.21 | 0.4 |
Asterisks indicate optimal models. P-values represent the significance of the respective term tested with each model (i.e. FL in M1 and X in M1a–M1g) obtained using likelihood ratio tests. The ΔAICs were obtained by comparing each model with the optimal model for each respective activity measure.
Results from the principal component analysis applied on seven metabolic measures
| Metabolic measure | MET1 | MET2 | MET3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rate of recovery | −0.24 | 0.19 | 0.84 |
| Average | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.14 |
| Metabolic variability | 0.38 | −0.02 | 0.44 |
| Routine | 0.45 | 0.23 | 0.05 |
| Spontaneous minimal | 0.35 | 0.52 | −0.27 |
| Spontaneous maximal | 0.41 | −0.42 | 0.06 |
| Spontaneous AMS | 0.35 | −0.59 | 0.07 |
| Cumulative variance explained | 61.6% | 79.8% | 92.7% |
Abbreviations: FL, fork length; FR, fineness ratio; SMR, standard metabolic rate; MMR, maximum metabolic rate; AMS, aerobic metabolic scope; MET1–3, PCA axes representing other metabolic metrics.
The cumulative variance explained by these three axes was 92.7%. Metabolic measures are explained in detail in the text. Abbreviations: AMS, aerobic metabolic scope; and , metabolic rate.
Summaries of optimal models for each activity measure
| Parameter | Estimate | SEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal model: | M1: | |||
| −954.1 | 519.3 | 0.066 | ||
| FL | 8.7 | 3.2 | 0.0083 | |
| σ | 132.0 | n.a. | n.a. | |
| σ | 185.2 (73.4–1169.4) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| ICC | 0.34 (0.013–0.76) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| Optimal model: | M1a: | |||
| α | −1.53 | 0.32 | <0.001 | |
| FL | 0.0041 | 0.00083 | <0.001 | |
| FR | 0.29 | 0.068 | <0.001 | |
| σ | 0.029 | n.a. | n.a. | |
| σ | 0.12 (0.03–0.28) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| ICC | 0.051 (0.011–0.55) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| Optimal model: | M1a: | |||
| α | −2.60 | 0.47 | <0.001 | |
| FL | 0.00087 | 0.0011 | 0.44 | |
| FR | 0.24 | 0.10 | 0.015 | |
| σ | 0.052 | n.a. | n.a. | |
| σ | 0.26 (0.19–0.46) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| ICC | 0.037 (0.013–0.068) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| Optimal model: | M1: ARday = α | |||
| α | −582.0 | 418.5 | 0.17 | |
| FL | 5.11 | 2.59 | 0.0497 | |
| σ | 109.9 | n.a. | n.a. | |
| σ | 111.4 (53.5–998.1) | n.a. | n.a. | |
| ICC | 0.49 (0.01–0.81) | n.a. | n.a. | |
Parameter estimates and associated standard errors (where available) are given. Medians are given for and ICC, with the minimum and maximum in parentheses. For all four models, it is assumed that and . P-values are obtained from likelihood ratio tests comparing the optimal model with a nested model excluding the respective parameter.