Table 1 Mass scaling relationships of measured physiological performances.

From: Body size and temperature affect metabolic and cardiac thermal tolerance in fish

Physiological performance

n indiv. (n obs.)

T (°C)

Scaling slope, b (SE) {CI2.5%, CI97.5%}

Intercept, ln(a) (SE)

MMR (mgO2 min−1)

83 (238)

12

0.810 (0.010) {0.79, 0.83}

1.011 (0.039)

16

1.235 (0.022)

20

1.436 (0.022)

22

1.497 (0.03)

RMR (mgO2 min−1)

81 (233)

12

0.809 (0.020) {0.77, 0.85}

0.235 (0.063)

16

0.59 (0.03)

20

0.845 (0.031)

22

0.97 (0.042)

AAS (mgO2 min−1)

81 (233)

12

0.883 (0.019) {0.85, 0.92}

0.541 (0.075)

16

0.591 (0.047)

20

0.745 (0.048)

22

0.713 (0.065)

FAS

81 (233)

12

0.020 (0.016) {-0.01, 0.05}

0.819 (0.049)

16

0.685 (0.025)

20

0.637 (0.026)

22

0.571 (0.035)

fHmax (beats min−1)

30 (317)

16*

-0.052 (0.009) {-0.07, -0.03}

4.325 (0.034)

TARR (°C)

29

 

0.030 (0.010) {0.01, 0.05}

3.359 (0.037)

TPEAK (°C)

30

 

0.034 (0.012) {0.01, 0.06}

3.304 (0.041)

PEAKfHmax (beats min−1)

30

 

-

4.916 (0.018)

TAB (°C)

27

 

0.030 (0.010) {0.01, 0.05}

3.144 (0.033)

Ventricle Mass (kg)

30

 

0.855 (0.029) {0.80, 0.91}

-7.639 (0.097)

  1. MMR, RMR, AAS, FAS, and fHmax scaling relationships were estimated using mixed models with temperature (T) as categorical explanatory variable. Cardiac thermal tolerance metrics and ventricle size were estimated using simple linear regressions. SE = standard error of mean.
  2. *Maximum heart rates changed significantly with 1 °C incremental change in temperature, only the scaling intercept for 16 °C estimate are presented.