How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review

Comparative animal physiology and related fields (named here "ecological physiology") are entering a time of synthesis in the form of a quest for large scales patterns. However, these new approaches need to be supplied by great amounts of data, representative of existing animal forms. We t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	NESPOLO,ROBERTO F., ARTACHO,PAULINA
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	Sociedad de Biología de Chile 2005
Materias:	comparative physiology macrophysiology endotherms ectotherms evolutionary physiology physiological ecology
Acceso en línea:	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2005000200015
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:scielo:S0716-078X2005000200015
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:scielo:S0716-078X20050002000152014-08-12How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative reviewNESPOLO,ROBERTO F.ARTACHO,PAULINA comparative physiology macrophysiology endotherms ectotherms evolutionary physiology physiological ecology Comparative animal physiology and related fields (named here "ecological physiology") are entering a time of synthesis in the form of a quest for large scales patterns. However, these new approaches need to be supplied by great amounts of data, representative of existing animal forms. We tested whether this is the case by performing a quantitative survey in the most important media for ecological physiologists. We found that ecological physiologists have clear biases toward some taxonomic classes, which represent one third of existing animal phyla. Non-taxonomic characterization of animals (endothermy/ectothermy, aquatic/terrestrial), however, produced a more balanced picture. In addition, ecological physiologists appear to be mostly intraspecific biologists since the great majority of studies were performed in one species. Multispecific studies were the minority and comparable to two - species comparative studies. The later are still being published despite to have been strongly criticized in the past. Cross-tabulation analysis yielded results suggesting that natural populations, vertebrates and terrestrial animals are preferred over artificial populations, aquatic animals and invertebrates. Although we recognize the limitations of our survey, it has the value to indicate that historical biases need to be taken in consideration if more global approaches are being undertaking in this disciplineinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedad de Biología de ChileRevista chilena de historia natural v.78 n.2 20052005-01-01text/htmlhttp://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2005000200015en10.4067/S0716-078X2005000200015
institution	Scielo Chile
collection	Scielo Chile
language	English
topic	comparative physiology macrophysiology endotherms ectotherms evolutionary physiology physiological ecology
spellingShingle	comparative physiology macrophysiology endotherms ectotherms evolutionary physiology physiological ecology NESPOLO,ROBERTO F. ARTACHO,PAULINA How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review
description	Comparative animal physiology and related fields (named here "ecological physiology") are entering a time of synthesis in the form of a quest for large scales patterns. However, these new approaches need to be supplied by great amounts of data, representative of existing animal forms. We tested whether this is the case by performing a quantitative survey in the most important media for ecological physiologists. We found that ecological physiologists have clear biases toward some taxonomic classes, which represent one third of existing animal phyla. Non-taxonomic characterization of animals (endothermy/ectothermy, aquatic/terrestrial), however, produced a more balanced picture. In addition, ecological physiologists appear to be mostly intraspecific biologists since the great majority of studies were performed in one species. Multispecific studies were the minority and comparable to two - species comparative studies. The later are still being published despite to have been strongly criticized in the past. Cross-tabulation analysis yielded results suggesting that natural populations, vertebrates and terrestrial animals are preferred over artificial populations, aquatic animals and invertebrates. Although we recognize the limitations of our survey, it has the value to indicate that historical biases need to be taken in consideration if more global approaches are being undertaking in this discipline
author	NESPOLO,ROBERTO F. ARTACHO,PAULINA
author_facet	NESPOLO,ROBERTO F. ARTACHO,PAULINA
author_sort	NESPOLO,ROBERTO F.
title	How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review
title_short	How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review
title_full	How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review
title_fullStr	How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review
title_full_unstemmed	How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review
title_sort	how general are current comparative physiology studies?: a quantitative review
publisher	Sociedad de Biología de Chile
publishDate	2005
url	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2005000200015
work_keys_str_mv	AT nespolorobertof howgeneralarecurrentcomparativephysiologystudiesaquantitativereview AT artachopaulina howgeneralarecurrentcomparativephysiologystudiesaquantitativereview
_version_	1718439575874961408

How general are current comparative physiology studies?: A quantitative review

Ejemplares similares