| Literature DB >> 30675522 |
Ming-Tsung Chung1, Clive N Trueman2, Jane Aanestad Godiksen3, Mathias Engell Holmstrup1, Peter Grønkjær1.
Abstract
Field metabolic rate (FMR) is key to understanding individual and population-level responses to environmental changes, but is challenging to measure in field conditions, particularly in aquatic environments. Here we show that FMR can be estimated directly from the isotopic composition of carbon inEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30675522 PMCID: PMC6338665 DOI: 10.1038/s42003-018-0266-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Commun Biol ISSN: 2399-3642
Fig. 1Definition of terms used to describe aspects of fish metabolism and their inter-relationships under a wild and b lab-controlled environments. SMR is standard metabolic rate, which is calculated as the effective metabolic rate at swimming speed 0 extrapolated from a series of measurements of oxygen consumption at different swimming speeds. Routine metabolic rate (RMR) is an average of daily oxygen consumption, which may include feeding or no feeding between studies. FMR and MMR are field metabolic rate and maximum metabolic rate, respectively
Fig. 2Among species variations in δ13Coto values and metabolism. a Published δ13Coto values in 76 species covary negatively with estimates of standard metabolic rate predicted by metabolic theory. b The proportion of respired carbon in otolith aragonite (Moto) estimated from δ13Coto values decreases with logarithmic body mass. c Moto values increase with environmental temperature. (linear regression, temperature: t value = 27.0, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.512; logarithmic body mass: t value = −16.0, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.267)
Fig. 3The relationship between the proportion of metabolic carbon in otolith aragonite (Moto) and a temperature and b oxygen consumption. Temperature experienced by individual fish is reconstructed from measured otolith δ18O values. The O2 consumption is estimated as routine metabolic rate with feeding conditions. The grey lines reflect 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation models considering uncertainty in both x and y variables
Fig. 4a FMRoto estimated from wild cod individuals based on the relationship built from reared cod in this study. b A comparison between FMRoto and literature values of SMR (for individual values see Supplementary Note 1) against the SMR predicted by the MTE. The grey area represents 10,000 times of Monte Carlo simulation in FMRoto and the green line is the average (Test 1). c Proportion of three components in FMRoto that is determined by an SDA/FMRoto ratio value of 0.4. The ratio is a maximum value of SDA proportional to FMR (Test 2). d FMRoto relative to SMR (FMR/SMR) along the MTE prediction compared to MMR factorial scope (MMR/SMR) values given by previous studies (Test 3)
Fig. 5Species-specific trends of the M term in fish lifespan from four deep sea fish species. These four deep sea fish species are captured above 1500 m in the Northeast Atlantic. The grey area is 95% confidence interval
Summary of fish used in the otolith carbon isotope analyses
| Temperature (°C) | Number | Weight (g) | δ13Coto (‰) | δ18Ooto (‰) | δ13CDIC (‰) | δ13Cdiet (‰) |
| Reconstructed oxygen consumption (mg O2 kg−1 h−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 11 | 118–298 | −2.23 ± 0.23 | 3.59 ± 0.21 | −0.15;−0.22 | −19.96 ± 0.30 | 0.10 ± 0.012 | 70 ± 6.5 |
| 7 | 15 | 111–410 | −2.87 ± 0.44 | 2.74 ± 0.26 | −0.13;−0.23 | −20.13 ± 0.68 | 0.14 ± 0.024 | 93 ± 10 |
| 10 | 19 | 128–678 | −3.25 ± 0.35 | 2.27 ± 0.29 | −0.27;−0.32 | −20.80 ± 0.82 | 0.14 ± 0.017 | 105 ± 16 |
| 14 | 18 | 94–530 | −4.02 ± 0.33 | 1.50 ± 0.30 | −0.21;−0.31 | −21.38 ± 0.63 | 0.18 ± 0.015 | 145 ± 28 |
| Individuals used for oxygen consumption measurements | ||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 4 | 4 | 270–406 | −2.76 ± 0.37 | 3.15 ± 0.29 | −0.31 | — | — | 36.7–56.6 |
| 7 | 5 | 338–710 | −3.12 ± 0.63 | 2.97 ± 0.23 | −0.27 | — | — | 40.0–53.6 |
| 10 | 4 | 532–783 | −3.46 ± 0.40 | 2.34 ± 0.37 | −0.23 | — | — | 50.1–71.0 |
| 14 | 4 | 306–631 | −3.83 ± 0.33 | 1.44 ± 0.29 | −0.11;−0.22 | — | — | 66.1–93.8 |