Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27382471›Full record

ArticleConservation physiology2016

Methods matter: considering locomotory mode and respirometry technique when estimating metabolic rates of fishes.

Jodie L Rummer, Sandra A Binning, Dominique G Roche, Jacob L Johansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jodie L RummerAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
Sandra A BinningAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Division of Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia; Éco-Éthologie, Institut de Biologie, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel 2000, Switzerland.
Dominique G RocheAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Division of Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia; Éco-Éthologie, Institut de Biologie, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel 2000, Switzerland.
Jacob L JohansenAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia; Marine Science Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Port Aransas, TX 78373, USA.
Australian Research Council · AUAustralian National University · AUJames Cook University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respirometry is frequently used to estimate metabolic rates and examine organismal responses to environmental change. Although a range of methodologies exists, it remains unclear whether differences in chamber design and exercise (type and duration) produce comparable results within individuals and whether the most appropriate method differs across taxa. We used a repeated-measures design to compare estimates of maximal and standard metabolic rates (MMR and SMR) in four coral reef fish species using the following three methods: (i) prolonged swimming in a traditional swimming respirometer; (ii) short-duration exhaustive chase with air exposure followed by resting respirometry; and (iii) short-duration exhaustive swimming in a circular chamber. We chose species that are steady/prolonged swimmers, using either a body-caudal fin or a median-paired fin swimming mode during routine swimming. Individual MMR estimates differed significantly depending on the method used. Swimming respirometry consistently provided the best (i.e. highest) estimate of MMR in all four species irrespective of swimming mode. Both short-duration protocols (exhaustive chase and swimming in a circular chamber) produced similar MMR estimates, which were up to 38% lower than those obtained during prolonged swimming. Furthermore, underestimates were not consistent across swimming modes or species, indicating that a general correction factor cannot be used. However, SMR estimates (upon recovery from both of the exhausting swimming methods) were consistent across both short-duration methods. Given the increasing use of metabolic data to assess organismal responses to environmental stressors, we recommend carefully considering respirometry protocols before experimentation. Specifically, results should not readily be compared across methods; discrepancies could result in misinterpretation of MMR and aerobic scope.

Indexed as

Body–caudal fin swimmingcarangiformcircular swimming chamberlabriformmedian–paired fin swimmingoxygen consumption rate

Identifiers

PMID27382471
PMCPMC4922262
OpenAlexW2303243836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.