Dinosaur Metabolism and the Allometry of Maximum Growth Rate

Weighing in on miniaturization: New body mass estimates for Triassic eucynodonts and analyses of body size evolution during the cynodont-mammal transition

Body size influences most aspects of an animal's biology, consequently, evolutionary diversification is often accompanied by differentiation of body sizes within a lineage. It is accepted that miniaturization, or the evolution of extremely small body sizes, played a key role in the origin and early evolution of different mammalian characters in non-mammaliaform cynodonts. However, while there are multiple studies on the biomechanical, behavioral, and physiological consequences of smaller sizes, few explore the evolutionary processes that lead to them. Here, we use body mass as a universal size measurement in phylogenetic comparative analyses to explore aspects of body size evolution in Cynodontia, focusing on the cynodont-mammal transition, and test the miniaturization hypothesis for the origin of Mammaliaformes. We estimated the body masses of 29 species, ranging from Theriocephalia to Mammaliaformes, providing the largest collection of Triassic cynodont body mass estimates that we know of, and used these estimates in analyses of disparity through time and RRphylo . Unexpectedly, our results did not support the miniaturization hypothesis. Even though cynodont body size disparity fell during the Late Triassic, and remained lower than expected under a purely Brownian motion model of evolution up until the Early Jurassic, we found that rates of body size evolution were significantly lower in prozostrodontians leading to the first Mammaliaformes than in other lineages. Evolution rates were higher in medium and large-sized taxa, indicating that size was changing more rapidly in those lineages and that small sizes were probably a persistent plesiomorphic character-state in Cynodontia.

Life's Energy and Information: Contrasting Evolution of Volume- versus Surface-Specific Rates of Energy Consumption

As humanity struggles to find a path to resilience amidst global change vagaries, understanding organizing principles of living systems as the pillar for human existence is rapidly growing in importance. However, finding quantitative definitions for order, complexity, information and functionality of living systems remains a challenge. Here, we review and develop insights into this problem from the concept of the biotic regulation of the environment developed by Victor Gorshkov (1935-2019). Life's extraordinary persistence-despite being a strongly non-equilibrium process-requires a quantum-classical duality: the program of life is written in molecules and thus can be copied without information loss, while life's interaction with its non-equilibrium environment is performed by macroscopic classical objects (living individuals) that age. Life's key energetic parameter, the volume-specific rate of energy consumption, is maintained within universal limits by most life forms. Contrary to previous suggestions, it cannot serve as a proxy for "evolutionary progress". In contrast, ecosystem-level surface-specific energy consumption declines with growing animal body size in stable ecosystems. High consumption by big animals is associated with instability. We suggest that the evolutionary increase in body size may represent a spontaneous loss of information about environmental regulation, a manifestation of life's algorithm ageing as a whole.

The evolution of mechanisms involved in vertebrate endothermy

Endothermy, i.e. the endogenous production of metabolic heat, has evolved multiple times among vertebrates, and several strategies of heat production have been studied extensively by physiologists over the course of the twentieth century. The independent acquisition of endothermy by mammals and birds has been the subject of many hypotheses regarding their origin and associated evolutionary constraints. Many groups of vertebrates, however, are thought to possess other mechanisms of heat production, and alternative ways to regulate thermogenesis that are not always considered in the palaeontological literature. Here, we perform a review of the mechanisms involved in heat production, with a focus on cellular and molecular mechanisms, in a phylogenetic context encompassing the entire vertebrate diversity. We show that endothermy in mammals and birds is not as well defined as commonly assumed by evolutionary biologists and consists of a vast array of physiological strategies, many of which are currently unknown. We also describe strategies found in other vertebrates, which may not always be considered endothermy, but nonetheless correspond to a process of active thermogenesis. We conclude that endothermy is a highly plastic character in vertebrates and provides a guideline on terminology and occurrences of the different types of heat production in vertebrate evolution. This article is part of the theme issue 'Vertebrate palaeophysiology'.

Dinosaur paleohistology: review, trends and new avenues of investigation

In the mid-19th century, the discovery that bone microstructure in fossils could be preserved with fidelity provided a new avenue for understanding the evolution, function, and physiology of long extinct organisms. This resulted in the establishment of paleohistology as a subdiscipline of vertebrate paleontology, which has contributed greatly to our current understanding of dinosaurs as living organisms. Dinosaurs are part of a larger group of reptiles, the Archosauria, of which there are only two surviving lineages, crocodilians and birds. The goal of this review is to document progress in the field of archosaur paleohistology, focusing in particular on the Dinosauria. We briefly review the "growth age" of dinosaur histology, which has encompassed new and varied directions since its emergence in the 1950s, resulting in a shift in the scientific perception of non-avian dinosaurs from "sluggish" reptiles to fast-growing animals with relatively high metabolic rates. However, fundamental changes in growth occurred within the sister clade Aves, and we discuss this major evolutionary transition as elucidated by histology. We then review recent innovations in the field, demonstrating how paleohistology has changed and expanded to address a diversity of non-growth related questions. For example, dinosaur skull histology has elucidated the formation of curious cranial tissues (e.g., "metaplastic" tissues), and helped to clarify the evolution and function of oral adaptations, such as the dental batteries of duck-billed dinosaurs. Lastly, we discuss the development of novel techniques with which to investigate not only the skeletal tissues of dinosaurs, but also less-studied soft-tissues, through molecular paleontology and paleohistochemistry-recently developed branches of paleohistology-and the future potential of these methods to further explore fossilized tissues. We suggest that the combination of histological and molecular methods holds great potential for examining the preserved tissues of dinosaurs, basal birds, and their extant relatives. This review demonstrates the importance of traditional bone paleohistology, but also highlights the need for innovation and new analytical directions to improve and broaden the utility of paleohistology, in the pursuit of more diverse, highly specific, and sensitive methods with which to further investigate important paleontological questions.

Examination of the Effects of Curvature in Geometrical Space on Accuracy of Scaling Derived Projections of Plant Biomass Units: Applications to the Assessment of Average Leaf Biomass in Eelgrass Shoots

Conservation of eelgrass relies on transplants and evaluation of success depends on nondestructive measurements of average leaf biomass in shoots among other variables. Allometric proxies offer a convenient way to assessments. Identifying surrogates via log transformation and linear regression can set biased results. Views conceive this approach to be meaningful, asserting that curvature in geometrical space explains bias. Inappropriateness of correction factor of retransformation bias could also explain inconsistencies. Accounting for nonlinearity of the log transformed response relied on a generalized allometric model. Scaling parameters depend continuously on the descriptor. Joining correction factor is conceived as the partial sum of series expansion of mean retransformed residuals leading to highest reproducibility strength. Fits of particular characterizations of the generalized curvature model conveyed outstanding reproducibility of average eelgrass leaf biomass in shoots. Although nonlinear heteroscedastic regression resulted also to be suitable, only log transformation approaches can unmask a size related differentiation in growth form of the leaf. Generally, whenever structure of regression error is undetermined, choosing a suitable form of retransformation correction factor becomes elusive. Compared to customary nonparametric characterizations of this correction factor, present form proved more efficient. We expect that offered generalized allometric model along with proposed correction factor form provides a suitable analytical arrangement for the general settings of allometric examination.

Formal comment on: Myhrvold (2016) Dinosaur metabolism and the allometry of maximum growth rate. PLoS ONE; 11(11): e0163205

In his 2016 paper, Myhrvold criticized ours from 2014 on maximum growth rates (Gmax, maximum gain in body mass observed within a time unit throughout an individual's ontogeny) and thermoregulation strategies (ectothermy, endothermy) of 17 dinosaurs. In our paper, we showed that Gmax values of similar-sized extant ectothermic and endothermic vertebrates overlap. This strongly questions a correct assignment of a thermoregulation strategy to a dinosaur only based on its Gmax and (adult) body mass (M). Contrary, Gmax separated similar-sized extant reptiles and birds (Sauropsida) and Gmax values of our studied dinosaurs were similar to those seen in extant similar-sized (if necessary scaled-up) fast growing ectothermic reptiles. Myhrvold examined two hypotheses (H1 and H2) regarding our study. However, we did neither infer dinosaurian thermoregulation strategies from group-wide averages (H1) nor were our results based on that Gmax and metabolic rate (MR) are related (H2). In order to assess whether single dinosaurian Gmax values fit to those of extant endotherms (birds) or of ectotherms (reptiles), we already used a method suggested by Myhrvold to avoid H1, and we only discussed pros and cons of a relation between Gmax and MR and did not apply it (H2). We appreciate Myhrvold's efforts in eliminating the correlation between Gmax and M in order to statistically improve vertebrate scaling regressions on maximum gain in body mass. However, we show here that his mass-specific maximum growth rate (kC) replacing Gmax (= MkC) does not model the expected higher mass gain in larger than in smaller species for any set of species. We also comment on, why we considered extant reptiles and birds as reference models for extinct dinosaurs and why we used phylogenetically-informed regression analysis throughout our study. Finally, we question several arguments given in Myhrvold in order to support his results.

Response to formal comment on Myhrvold (2016) submitted by Griebeler and Werner (2017)

Griebeler and Werner offer a formal comment on Myhrvold, 2016 defending the conclusions of Werner and Griebeler, 2014. Although the comment criticizes several aspects of methodology in Myhrvold, 2016, all three papers concur on a key conclusion: the metabolism of extant endotherms and ectotherms cannot be reliably classified using growth-rate allometry, because the growth rates of extant endotherms and ectotherms overlap. A key point of disagreement is that the 2014 paper concluded that despite this general case, one can nevertheless classify dinosaurs as ectotherms from their growth rate allometry. The 2014 conclusion is based on two factors: the assertion (made without any supporting arguments) that the comparison with dinosaurs must be restricted only to extant sauropsids, ignoring other vertebrate groups, and that extant sauropsid endotherm and ectotherm growth rates in a data set studied in the 2014 work do not overlap. The Griebeler and Werner formal comment presents their first arguments in support of the restriction proposition. In this response I show that this restriction is unsupported by established principles of phylogenetic comparison. In addition, I show that the data set studied in their 2014 work does show overlap, and that this is visible in one of its figures. I explain how either point effectively invalidates the conclusion of their 2014 paper. I also address the other methodological criticisms of Myhrvold 2016, and find them unsupported.