Abstract
I re-examined the scaling of metabolic rate versus body mass in eight species of ant (static allometry) to illustrate one of the ways by which contemporary concepts of metabolic allometry have been negatively impacted by the widespread use of a standardized procedure for analyzing bivariate data. The procedure in question is the one promoted by Julian Huxley in his monograph on Problems of Relative Growth, and entails back-transforming the equation for a straight line fitted to logarithmic transformations of the original observations to form a two-parameter power function on the arithmetic scale. The scaling exponents for power equations fitted to data by Huxley’s protocol were used by the original authors to evaluate predictions from a theoretical model for the evolutionary optimization of body size in animals. However, my analyses—which were based on a different philosophy and protocol for modeling bivariate data—show that observations for each of the species can be described equally well by two or more different equations with different functional form. Metabolic rate is generally higher in large individuals than in small ones, but little more can be said about metabolic allometry in ants because a clear distinction cannot be made between alternative statistical models that require very different interpretations for biological importance. Conclusions from any investigation that relies exclusively on Huxley’s analytical protocol will be based on incomplete and potentially misleading evidence.
References
Anderson DR (2008) Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. Springer, New York
Anscombe FJ (1973) Graphs in statistical analysis. Am Stat 27:17–21
Bales GS (1996) Heterochrony in brontothere horn evolution: allometric interpretations and the effect of life history scaling. Paleobiology 22:481–495
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35
Chown SL, Marais E, Terblanche JS, Klok CJ, Lighton JRB, Blackburn TM (2007) Scaling of insect metabolic rate is inconsistent with the nutrient supply network model. Funct Ecol 21:282–290
Finney DJ (1989) Was this in your statistics textbook? Transformation of data. Exp Agric 25:165–175
Glazier DS (2014) Metabolic scaling in complex living systems. Systems 2:451–540
Glazier DS (2018) Rediscovering and reviving old observations and explanations of metabolic scaling in living systems. Systems 6:4
Gould SJ (1975) Allometry in primates, with emphasis on scaling and the evolution of the brain. Contrib Primatol 5:244–292
Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Methuen, London
Kozłowski J, Konarzewski M, Gawelczyk AT (2003) Cell size as a link between noncoding DNA and metabolic rate scaling. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:14080–14085
Lavine M (2014) Comment on Murtaugh. Ecology 95:642–645
Medawar PB (1950) Transformation of shape. Proc R Soc B 137:474–479
Menge DNL, MacPherson AC, Bytnerowicz TA, Quebbeman AW, Schwartz NB, Taylor BN, Wolf AA (2018) Logarithmic scales in ecological data presentation may cause misinterpretation. Nat Ecol Evol 2:1393–1402
Murtaugh PA (2014a) In defense of P values. Ecology 95:611–617
Murtaugh PA (2014b) Rejoinder. Ecology 95:651–653
Packard GC (2011) Unanticipated consequences of logarithmic transformation in bivariate allometry. J Comput Physiol B 181:841–849
Packard GC (2014) On the use of log-transformation versus nonlinear regression for analyzing biological power laws. Biol J Linn Soc 113:1167–1178
Packard GC (2015) Quantifying the curvilinear metabolic scaling in mammals. J Exp Zool A 323:540–546
Packard GC (2017a) Is complex allometry in field metabolic rates of mammals a statistical artifact? Comput Biochem Physiol A 203:322–327
Packard GC (2017b) The essential role for graphs in allometric analysis. Biol J Linn Soc 120:468–473
Packard GC (2017c) Why allometric variation in mammalian metabolism is curvilinear on the logarithmic scale. J Exp Zool A 327:537–541
Packard GC (2019) Modeling allometric variation: lessons from the metabolic allometry of black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus). Can J Zool 97:1078–1083
Packard GC (2020) Julian Huxley and the quantification of relative growth. Zoomorphology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00435-019-00466-0
Sartori AF, Ball AD (2009) Morphology and postlarval development of the ligament of Thracia phaseolina (Bivalvia: Thraciidae), with a discussion of model choice in allometric studies. J Mollusc Stud 75:295–304
Shoresh N, Wong B (2012) Data exploration. Nat Methods 9:5
Smith RJ (1980) Rethinking allometry. J Theor Biol 87:97–111
Smith RJ (1984) Allometric scaling in comparative biology: problems of concept and method. Am J Physiol 246:R152–R160
Smith RJ (1993) Logarithmic transformation bias in allometry. Am J Phys Anthropol 90:215–228
Thompson DW (1942) On growth and form—a new edition. Macmillan, New York
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Steven Chown and his associates for making their data on ants available to other investigators; and to two anonymous referees and an Associate Editor for thoughtful, constructive criticisms of the original manuscript. I hereby declare that I have no conflict of interest. My investigation was funded out-of-pocket and received no financial support from any institution or governmental agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Packard, G.C. Rethinking the metabolic allometry of ants. Evol Ecol 34, 149–161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-020-10033-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-020-10033-5