4.5 Article

Body size is not critical for critical PO2 in scarabaeid and tenebrionid beetles

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 215, 期 14, 页码 2524-2533

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.057141

关键词

Coleoptera; allometry; insect; oxygen delivery; respiration; trachea; scaling; metabolism

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IBN-0419704, DEB-0083422]
  2. University of New Mexico Graduate Research Allocation Committee (GRAC)
  3. Student Research Allocations Committee (SRAC)
  4. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Constraints on oxygen delivery potentially limit animal body size. Because diffusion rates are highly distance dependent, and because tracheal length increases with size, gas exchange was traditionally thought to be more difficult for larger insects. As yet the effect of body size on critical oxygen partial pressure (P-crit) has not been measured for any clade of insect species for which there are interspecific data on tracheal scaling. We addressed this deficiency by measuring P-crit over a 4150-fold mass range (ratio of largest to smallest species mean) of two families of Coleoptera (Tenebrionidae and Scarabaeidae). We exposed adult beetles to progressively lower oxygen levels and measured their ability to maintain CO2 release rates. Absolute metabolic rates increased hypometrically with beetle body mass (M) at both normoxic (M-0.748) and hypoxic (M-0.846) conditions. P-crit, however, was independent of body size. Maximum overall conductances for oxygen from air to mitochondria (G(O2,max)) matched metabolic rates as insects became larger, likely enabling the similar P-crit values observed in large and small beetles. These data suggest that current atmospheric oxygen levels do not limit body size of insects because of limitations on gas exchange. However, increasing relative investment in the tracheal system in larger insects may produce trade-offs or meet spatial limits that constrain insect size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据