Diet, phylogeny, and basal metabolic rate in phyllostomid bats
Diet, phylogeny, and basal metabolic rate in phyllostomid bats
复制标题
DOI：
10.1078/0944-2006-00006
复制
发表时间：
2001-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Abe, AS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cruz-Neto, AP;Garland, T;Abe, AS
除了体重的普遍影响外，关于哺乳动物基础代谢率(BMR)的种间差异的原因还存在很大争议；然而，饮食和系统发育都有很大的关联。我们研究了新世界蝙蝠家族叶甲科的BMR变异，这表明哺乳动物家族中食物习性的最大差异，包括食果性、食蜜性、食虫性、肉食性和食血性。对于27个物种，饮食取自文献，BMR要么测量在巴西捕获的动物，要么从文献中提取。以体重为协变量的传统(非系统发育)协方差分析(ANCOVA)首次被用于检验饮食对基础代谢率的影响。在这项假设所有物种同时从同一祖先进化而来的分析中(即“恒星”系统发育)，饮食对非质量依赖的基础代谢率有很大的影响：食蜜性蝙蝠比其他以水果、昆虫或血液为食的蝙蝠表现出更高的质量非依赖基础代谢率。在通过蒙特卡罗计算机模拟的系统发育ANCOVA中，没有观察到饮食对BMR的统计显著影响，该模拟假设物种是分支等级系统发育的一部分。因此，非系统发育分析的结果具有误导性，因为测试饮食效果的临界值被低估了。然而，在这个蝙蝠样本中，饮食与系统发育完全混淆，因为四个饮食类别代表四个独立的亚类，这大大降低了检测饮食(=亚类)影响的统计能力。但是，即使饮食确实对这一蝙蝠样本的BMR产生了影响，在逻辑上也不可能将这种影响与饮食类别因某些其他原因而不同的可能性分开(即一个或多个亚纲的另一个突触构型)。这样的例子突出了在设计新的比较研究时以及在分析现有数据集时考虑系统发育关系的重要性。我们还讨论了BMR可能与饮食不适应的一些可能原因。
Aside from the pervasive effects of body mass, much controversy exists as to what factors account for interspecific variation in basal metabolic rates (BMR) of mammals; however, both diet and phylogeny have been strongly implicated. We examined variation in BMR within the New World bat family Phyllostomidae, which shows the largest diversity of food habits among mammalian families, including frugivorous, nectarivorous, insectivorous, carnivorous and blood-eating species. For 27 species, diet was taken from the literature and BMR was either measured on animals captured in Brazil or extracted from the Literature. Conventional (nonphylogenetic) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with body mass as the covariate, was first used to test the effects of diet on BMR. In this analysis, which assumes that all species evolved simultaneously from a single ancestor (i.e., a "star" phylogeny), diet exerted a strong effect on mass-independent BMR: nectarivorous bats showed higher mass-independent BMR than other bats feeding on fruits, insects or blood. In phylogenetic ANCOVAs via Monte Carlo computer simulation, which assume that species are part of a branching hierarchical phylogeny, no statistically significant effect of diet on BMR was observed. Hence, results of the nonphylogenetic analysis were misleading because the critical values for testing the effect of diet were underestimated. However, in this sample of bats, diet is perfectly confounded with phylogeny, because the four dietary categories represent four separate subclades, which greatly reduces statistical power to detect a diet (= subclade) effect. But even if diet did appear to exert an influence on BMR in this sample of bats, it would not be logically possible to separate this effect from the possibility that the dietary categories differ for some other reason (i.e., another synapomorphy of one or more of the subclades). Examples such as this highlight the importance of considering phylogenetic relationships when designing new comparative studies, as well as when analyzing existing data sets. We also discuss some possible reasons why BMR may not coadapt with diet.