Distinguishing between active plasticity due to thermal acclimation and passive plasticity due to Q10 effects: Why methodology matters,Functional Ecology

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Funct. Ecol. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Distinguishing between active plasticity due to thermal acclimation and passive plasticity due to Q10 effects: Why methodology matters
Functional Ecology ( IF 4.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-03-03 , DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.13534
Justin C. Havird ₁ , Jennifer L. Neuwald _{2,

3} , Alisha A. Shah _{2,

4} , Alexander Mauro _{2,

3} , Craig A. Marshall ₂ , Cameron K. Ghalambor _{2,

3}

Affiliation

Characterizing thermal acclimation is a common goal of eco‐physiological studies and has important implications for models of climate change and environmental adaptation. However, quantifying thermal acclimation in biological rate processes is not straightforward because many rates increase with temperature due to the acute effect of thermodynamics on molecular interactions. Disentangling such passive plastic responses from active acclimation responses is critical for describing patterns of thermal acclimation.
Here, we reviewed published studies and distinguished between different study designs measuring the acute (i.e. passive) and acclimated (i.e. active) effects of temperature on metabolic rate. We then developed a method to quantify and classify acclimation responses by comparing acute and acclimated Q₁₀ values. Finally, we applied this method using meta‐analysis to characterize thermal acclimation in metabolic rates of ectothermic animals.
We reviewed 258 studies measuring thermal effects on metabolic rates, and found that a majority of these studies (74%) did not allow for quantifying the independent effects of acclimation. Such studies were more common when testing aquatic taxa and continue to be published even in recent years.
A meta‐analysis of 96 studies where acclimation could be quantified (using 1,072 Q₁₀ values) revealed that ‘partial compensation’ was the most common acclimation response (i.e. acclimation tended to offset the passive change in metabolic rate due to acute temperature changes). However, ‘no acclimation’ and ‘inverse compensation’, in which acclimation further augmented the acute change in metabolic rate, were also common.
Acclimation responses differed among taxa, habitats and with experimental design. Amphibians and other terrestrial taxa tended to show weak acclimation responses, whereas fishes and other aquatic taxa tended to show stronger compensatory responses. Increasing how long the animal was allowed to adjust to a new test temperature increased the acclimation response, but body size did not. Acclimation responses were also stronger with longer acclimation durations.
Collectively, these results highlight the importance of using the appropriate experimental design to investigate and estimate thermal acclimation of biological rates. To facilitate and guide future studies of thermal acclimation, we end with some suggestions for designing and interpreting experiments.

中文翻译：

区分热适应引起的主动塑性和Q10效应引起的被动塑性：为什么方法学很重要

表征热适应是生态生理研究的共同目标，并且对气候变化和环境适应模型具有重要意义。但是，在生物速率过程中量化热适应并不是简单的方法，因为由于热力学对分子相互作用的强烈影响，许多速率会随温度升高而增加。将这种被动塑性响应与主动适应响应区分开来，对于描述热适应模式至关重要。
在这里，我们回顾了已发表的研究，并在测量温度对代谢率的急性（即被动）和适应性（即主动）影响的不同研究设计之间进行了区分。然后，我们开发了一种通过比较急性和适应Q ₁₀值来量化和分类适应反应的方法。最后，我们通过荟萃分析应用此方法来表征热适应性动物的代谢速率。
我们回顾了258项测量热对代谢率影响的研究，发现其中大多数研究（74％）不允许量化适应的独立影响。这种研究在测试水生生物分类时更为普遍，甚至在最近几年仍在继续发表。
对96项研究的荟萃分析表明，可以量化适应性（使用1,072 Q ₁₀值），“部分补偿”是最常见的适应性反应（即适应性可以抵消由于温度的急剧变化而引起的代谢率的被动变化）。但是，“无适应”和“逆补偿”也很普遍，其中适应进一步加剧了代谢率的急剧变化。
在分类群，生境和实验设计中，驯化响应有所不同。两栖类和其他陆生类群倾向于表现出较弱的适应性反应，而鱼类和其他水生类群倾向于表现出较强的补偿性反应。允许动物适应新的测试温度的时间增加会增加适应性反应，但体型却没有。适应时间越长，适应反应越强。
总的来说，这些结果突出了使用适当的实验设计来调查和估算生物速率的热适应的重要性。为了促进和指导未来的热适应研究，我们最后给出了一些设计和解释实验的建议。

更新日期：2020-03-03

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

阅读更多本刊最新论文本刊介绍/投稿指南11