CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 311Physiological and biochemical adaptationsEvolution and Paleontology StudiesAdipose Tissue and Metabolism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Relationship between Basal Metabolic Rate and Daily Energy Expenditure in Birds and Mammals

Open access
Ricklefs, Robert E., Konarzewski, Marek, Daan, Serge·1996·The American Naturalist
DOI 10.1086/285892
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examined the relationship between daily energy expenditure (DEE) and basal metabolic rate (BMR) in birds and mammals. Two models of the relationship between DEE and BMR were distinguished: a "shared pathways" model in which DEE replaces BMR in the active organism and a "partitioned pathways" model in which DEE includes BMR-that is, BMR is separate from the metabolic pathways that result in activity metabolism (ACT), and DEE = ACT + BMR. The appropriate null hypotheses for the relationship between basal and active metabolism are rDEE· BMR = 0 and rACT· BMR = 0, respectively. Correlations of the residuals (d and b) of the logarithms of DEE and BMR from their allometric regressions with the logarithm of body mass were tested against these null models. Using phylogenetically independent contrasts, we found no significant relationship between DEE and BMR in birds, but a strong relationship (rdb = 0.86) among mammals. Thus, the hypothesis that sustained working capacity is related to basal metabolism is supported for mammals but not for birds. Residuals of metabolic variables from allometric regressions on body mass were greater for mammals than for birds and suggest that mammals are more diversified in their energetic physiology. The idea that sustainable energy expenditure may be pushed to physiological limits in mammals but not in birds is not supported, however, because the ratio of DEE to BMR has a somewhat lower mean and greater variance in mammals compared to birds. The n…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/285892

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 311

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ricklefs, R. E., Konarzewski, M., & Daan, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
ORCID
Venue
The American Naturalist
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
1996-06
Volume
147
Issue
6
Pages
1047-1071
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
DOI
10.1086/285892
OpenAlex
W1980038648
Cited by
311
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • The American Naturalist (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Uniwersytet Warszawski
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Physiological and biochemical adaptations
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Adipose Tissue and Metabolism
Keywords
basal metabolic rate, daily energy expenditure, birds, mammals, allometry, body mass, phylogenetically independent contrasts, metabolic pathways

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review