Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 501

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring metabolic rate in the field: the pros and cons of the doubly labelled water and heart rate methods

Open access
Butler, P. J., Green, J. A., Boyd, I. L., Speakman, J. R.·2004·Functional Ecology

Abstract

1 Measuring the metabolic rate of animals in the field (FMR) is central to the work of ecologists in many disciplines. In this article we discuss the pros and cons of the two most commonly used methods for measuring FMR. 2 Both methods are constantly under development, but at the present time can only accurately be used to estimate the mean rate of energy expenditure of groups of animals. The doubly labelled water method (DLW) uses stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen to trace the flow of water and carbon dioxide through the body over time. From these data, it is possible to derive a single estimate of the rate of oxygen consumption () for the duration of the experiment. The duration of the experiment will depend on the rate of flow of isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen through the body, which in turn depends on the animal's size, ranging from 24 h for small vertebrates to up to 28 days in Humans. 3 This technique has been used widely, partly as a result of its relative simplicity and potential low cost, though there is some uncertainty over the determination of the standard error of the estimate of mean . 4 The heart rate (fH) method depends on the physiological relationship between heart rate and . 5 If these two quantities are calibrated against each other under controlled conditions, fH can then be measured in free-ranging animals and used to estimate . 6 The latest generation of small implantable data loggers means that it is possible to measure fH for over a year on a very fine temporal scale, though the current size of the data loggers limits the size of experimental animals to around 1 kg. However, externally mounted radio-transmitters are now sufficiently small to be used with animals of less than 40 g body mass. This technique is gaining in popularity owing to its high accuracy and versatility, though the logistic constraint of performing calibrations can make its use a relatively extended process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00821.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 501

Metadata

Authors
Butler, P. J., Green, J. A., Boyd, I. L., & Speakman, J. R.
Venue
Functional Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-04
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
168-183
ISSN
  • 0269-8463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2435
OpenAlex
W2153971178
Cited by
501
References
1
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring metabolic rate in the field: the pros and cons of the doubly labelled water and heart rate methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00821.x
The paper
Butler, P. J., Green, J. A., Boyd, I. L., & Speakman, J. R. (2004). Measuring metabolic rate in the field: the pros and cons of the doubly labelled water and heart rate methods. Functional Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00821.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.