Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 222 of the 222 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A unifying explanation for diverse metabolic scaling in animals and plants

Glazier, Douglas S.·2010·Biological Reviews

Abstract

The scaling of metabolic rate with body mass has long been a controversial topic. Some workers have claimed that the slope of log‐log metabolic scaling relationships typically obeys a universal 3/4‐power law resulting from the geometry of resource‐transport networks. Others have attempted to explain the broad diversity of metabolic scaling relationships. Although several potentially useful models have been proposed, at present none successfully predicts the entire range of scaling relationships seen among both physiological states and taxonomic groups of animals and plants. Here I argue that our understanding may be aided by three shifts in focus: from explaining average tendencies to explaining variation between extreme boundary limits, from explaining the slope and elevation (metabolic level) of scaling relationships separately to showing how and why they are interrelated, and from focusing primarily on internal factors (e.g. body design) to a more balanced consideration of both internal and external (ecological) factors. By incorporating all of these shifts in focus, the recently proposed metabolic‐level boundaries hypothesis appears to provide a useful way of explaining both taxonomic and physiological variation in metabolic scaling relationships. This hypothesis correctly predicts that the scaling slope should vary mostly between 2/3 and 1 and that it should be related to metabolic (activity) level according to an approximately U‐shaped function. It also implies that the scaling of other energy‐dependent biological processes should be related to the metabolic level of the organisms being examined. Some data are presented that support this implication, but further research is needed.

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.1469-185x.2009.00095.x

Cites

222 of 222 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 222 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Glazier, D. S.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01-12
Volume
85
Issue
1
Pages
111-138
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2102236264
Cited by
403
References
222
FWCI
3.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A unifying explanation for diverse metabolic scaling in animals and plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00095.x
The paper
Glazier, D. S. (2010). A unifying explanation for diverse metabolic scaling in animals and plants. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00095.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.