Repeatability of metabolic rate is lower for animals living under field versus laboratory conditions

Auer, Sonya K.; Bassar, Ronald D.; Salin, Karine; Metcalfe, Neil B.

doi:10.1242/jeb.133678

Cited by 60 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The new adjusted R estimates are 0.39 for SMR (CI=0.23-0.51) and 0.24 (CI=0.10-0.35) for MMR (Fig. 2I-L), both of which fall within the range commonly reported for these traits (Auer et al, 2016). R estimates obtained in this way represent 'adjusted repeatability' (see Glossary) as opposed to 'agreement repeatability' obtained from LMMs without fixed effects (Nakagawa and Schielzeth, 2010) (refer to the Glossary for an explanation of different repeatability measurements and relevant references).…”

Section: Measuring Repeatabilitysupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Most recently, several studies in the Journal of Experimental Biology have illustrated how these methods can also be used to estimate the repeatability of physiological and performance-related traits and gain important insight into their ecological and evolutionary implications (e.g. Laming et al, 2013;Darveau et al, 2014;Auer et al, 2016;Conradsen et al, 2016).…”

Section: Measuring Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists

Roche

Careau

Binning

2016

Journal of Experimental Biology

152

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal 'personality', defined as repeatable inter-individual differences in behaviour, is a concept in biology that faces intense controversy. Critics argue that the field is riddled with terminological and methodological inconsistencies and lacks a sound theoretical framework. Nevertheless, experimental biologists are increasingly studying individual differences in physiology and relating these to differences in behaviour, which can lead to fascinating insights. We encourage this trend, and in this Commentary we highlight some of the benefits of estimating variation in (and covariation among) phenotypic traits at the inter-and intra-individual levels. We focus on behaviour while drawing parallels with physiological and performance-related traits. First, we outline some of the confusion surrounding the terminology used to describe repeatable inter-individual differences in behaviour. Second, we argue that acknowledging individual behavioural differences can help researchers avoid sampling and experimental bias, increase explanatory power and, ultimately, understand how selection acts on physiological traits. Third, we summarize the latest methods to collect, analyse and present data on individual trait variation. We note that, while measuring the repeatability of phenotypic traits is informative in its own right, it is only the first step towards understanding how natural selection and genetic architecture shape intra-specific variation in complex, labile traits. Thus, understanding how and why behavioural traits evolve requires linking repeatable inter-individual behavioural differences with core aspects of physiology (e.g. neurophysiology, endocrinology, energy metabolism) and evolutionary biology (e.g. selection gradients, heritability).

show abstract

Section: Measuring Repeatabilitysupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Measuring Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists

Roche

Careau

Binning

2016

Journal of Experimental Biology

152

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Repeatability estimated from individuals reared under controlled environmental conditions, such as in this study, might be expected to be higher than for individuals experiencing natural micro-environmental variation in the wild (e.g. Auer et al, 2016). Further work, with larger sample sizes, is required to determine whether the 95% CI of repeatability of U crit estimated in the wild are typically above 0.5.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Repeatability of locomotor performance and of morphology – locomotor performance relationships

Conradsen

Walker

Perna

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is good evidence that natural selection drives the evolution of locomotor performance, but the processes that generate the among-individual variation for selection to act on are relatively poorly understood. We measured prolonged swimming performance, U crit , and morphology in a large cohort (n=461) of wild-type zebrafish (Danio rerio) at ∼6 months and again at ∼9 months. Using mixedmodel analyses to estimate repeatability as the intraclass correlation coefficient, we determined that U crit was significantly repeatable (r=0.55; 95% CI: 0.45-0.64). Performance differences between the sexes (males 12% faster than females) and changes with age (decreasing 0.07% per day) both contributed to variation in U crit and, therefore, the repeatability estimate. Accounting for mean differences between sexes within the model decreased the estimate of U crit repeatability to 21% below the naïve estimate, while fitting age in the models increased the estimate to 14% above the naïve estimate. Greater consideration of factors such as age and sex is therefore necessary for the interpretation of performance repeatability in wild populations. Body shape significantly predicted U crit in both sexes in both assays, with the morphology-performance relationship significantly repeatable at the population level. However, morphology was more strongly predicative of performance in older fish, suggesting a change in the contribution of morphology relative to other factors such as physiology and behaviour. The morphologyperformance relationship changed with age to a greater extent in males than females.

show abstract

“…A similar effect of interval length has also been previously reported for the repeatability of metabolism (White, Schimpf & Cassey ; Auer et al . ). Although our results showed a similar direction for the effect of intervals for the metabolism data set, this effect was not statistically significant (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Metabolic rates, and not hormone levels, are a likely mediator of between‐individual differences in behaviour: a meta‐analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Consistent individual differences in hormone levels and metabolic rates have been proposed to be potential state variables underlying consistent individual differences in behaviour (i.e. animal personality). However, it remains unclear whether either one alone or both of these potential state variables could be an underlying driver of animal personality. We address this question using meta‐analyses of published data from bird species. We hypothesized that state variables that mediate individual differences in behaviour would display similar or higher repeatability estimates than behavioural traits. To test this hypothesis, we quantified repeatability estimates of hormone levels, metabolic rates and behavioural traits. We found moderate to high mean repeatability estimates for both metabolic rates and behavioural traits, but low repeatability estimates for hormone levels. These findings indicate that metabolic rates likely represent an important mechanism for generating adaptive personality differences in behaviour. We also show that: (i) for hormones and behaviour, repeatability decreased with increasing interval time between two measurements; (ii) males and females differed in repeatability for behavioural traits; (iii) stress‐induced hormone levels were more repeatable than baseline levels. Future studies are now required to determine the direction of the association between metabolic rates and behavioural traits. At the same time, these studies should try to investigate which of the proposed mechanisms is responsible for the relationship between state variable and state‐dependent behaviour. In addition, we encourage researchers to report the coefficient of variation for between‐individual variance (CVB) along with repeatability estimates because these two indices carry different information. We discuss how CVB may better facilitate future comparative studies, including meta‐analyses. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12779/suppinfo is available for this article.

show abstract

Repeatability of metabolic rate is lower for animals living under field versus laboratory conditions

Cited by 60 publications

References 20 publications

Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists

Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists

Repeatability of locomotor performance and of morphology – locomotor performance relationships

Metabolic rates, and not hormone levels, are a likely mediator of between‐individual differences in behaviour: a meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About