2611099
doi
10.1111/geb.12847
oai:zenodo.org:2611099
user-climefish
user-eu
Barneche, Diego R
2School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney
Baudron, Alan R
3School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen
Belmaker, Jonathan
4School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University
Clark, Timothy D
5Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences
Marshall, C Tara
3School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen
Morrongiello, John R
School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne
van Rijn, Itai
School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University
Is oxygen limitation in warming waters a valid mechanism to explain decreased body sizes in aquatic ectotherms?
Audzijonyte, Asta
1Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
<p>Abstract<br>
Aim<br>
The negative correlation between temperature and body size of ectothermic animals (broadly known<br>
as the temperature-size rule or TSR) is a widely observed pattern, especially in aquatic organisms.<br>
Studies have claimed that TSR arises due to decreased oxygen solubility and increasing metabolic<br>
costs at warmer temperatures, whereby oxygen supply to a large body becomes increasingly difficult.<br>
However, mixed empirical evidence has led to a controversy about the mechanisms affecting<br>
species’ size and performance under different temperatures. We review the main competing genetic,<br>
physiological and ecological explanations for TSR and suggest a roadmap to move the field forward.<br>
Location<br>
Global<br>
Taxa<br>
Aquatic ectotherms<br>
Time period<br>
1980 – Present<br>
Results<br>
We show that current studies cannot discriminate among alternative hypotheses and none of the<br>
hypotheses can explain all TSR-related observations. To resolve the impasse we need experiments<br>
and field-sampling programs that specifically compare alternative mechanisms and formally consider<br>
energetics related to growth costs, oxygen supply and behaviour. We highlight the distinction<br>
between evolutionary and plastic mechanisms, and suggest that the oxygen limitation debate should<br>
separate processes operating on short, decadal and millennial timescales.<br>
Conclusions<br>
Despite decades of research, we remain uncertain whether TSR is an adaptive response to<br>
temperature-related physiological (enzyme activity) or ecological changes (food, predation, other<br>
mortality), or a response to constraints operating at a cellular level (oxygen supply and associated<br>
costs). To make progress, ecologists, physiologists, modellers and geneticists should work together<br>
to develop a cross-disciplinary research program that integrates theory and data, explores time scales<br>
over which TSR operates, and assesses limits to adaptation or plasticity. We identify four questions<br>
for such a program. Answering these questions is crucial given the widespread impacts of climate<br>
change and reliance of management on models that are highly dependent on accurate representation<br>
of ecological and physiological responses to temperature.<br>
<br>
Keywords: adaptation, alternative mechanisms, climate change, growth, poikilotherm, energy<br>
budget, geometric biology, temperature size rule</p>
Zenodo
2018-11-16
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
2611098
user-climefish
user-eu
award_title=Co-creating a decision support framework to ensure sustainable fish production in Europe under climate change; award_number=677039; award_identifiers_scheme=url; award_identifiers_identifier=https://cordis.europa.eu/projects/677039; funder_id=00k4n6c32; funder_name=European Commission;
1579521789.122721
448573
md5:5ea8c47f90e06eba9639abb7a9fb6333
https://zenodo.org/records/2611099/files/Audzijonyte_OxygenLimitationSelfArchived.pdf
public