Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41689656›Full record

ReviewJournal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology2026

The "fire of life cycles": age-specific metabolic scaling within and among species.

Douglas S Glazier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Douglas S GlazierDepartment of Biology, Juniata College, Huntingdon, PA, 16652, USA. glazier@juniata.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7164-1823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tempo of the “fire of life” (metabolic rate) relates strongly to adult body size. Most metabolic scaling theory has been based on these adult relationships. However, organisms are not just static adults but have dynamic life histories encompassing multiple developmental stages. Therefore, I advocate that empirical and theoretical studies of metabolic scaling be expanded to include allometric relationships between the metabolic rates and body sizes of various life-history stages. In support, I review observed ontogenetic scaling relationships within species and interspecific relationships based on the body sizes of specific immature developmental stages, including animal eggs/embryos/larvae/juveniles, and plant seeds/seedlings. A diversity of linear and nonlinear scaling relationships, which often do not follow simple 2/3- or 3/4-power laws, is revealed that compels one to consider multiple mechanistic models other than just resource-transport network models that have been used to explain adult-based metabolic scaling relationships. Allometric analyses focused on the “fire of life cycles” show much promise for stimulating the development and testing of a comprehensive, multi-faceted theory that can explain the diversity of observed intra- and inter-specific relationships. These studies may also help bridge the disciplines of developmental biology, gerontology, and biological scaling in mutually beneficial ways. Additional new research opportunities are discussed, including analyses of whether and how metabolic scaling parameters vary with developmental age from conception to death, and in response to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors.

Indexed as

Body sizeDevelopmental stageLife historyLinear and nonlinear scalingMetabolic rateOntogeny and phylogeny

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.