Dataset Information

Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)?

ABSTRACT: The expensive brain hypothesis predicts an interspecific link between relative brain size and life-history pace. Indeed, animals with relatively large brains have reduced rates of growth and reproduction. However, they also have increased total lifespan. Here we show that the reduction in production with increasing brain size is not fully compensated by the increase in lifespan. Consequently, the maximum rate of population increase (rmax) is negatively correlated with brain mass. This result is not due to a confounding effect of body size, indicating that the well-known correlation between rmax and body size is driven by brain size, at least among homeothermic vertebrates. Thus, each lineage faces a 'grey ceiling', i.e. a maximum viable brain size, beyond which rmax is so low that the risk of local or species extinction is very high. We found that the steep decline in rmax with brain size is absent in taxa with allomaternal offspring provisioning, such as cooperatively breeding mammals and most altricial birds. These taxa thus do not face a lineage-specific grey ceiling, which explains the far greater number of independent origins of large brain size in birds than mammals. We also predict that (absolute and relative) brain size is an important predictor of macroevolutionary extinction patterns.

SUBMITTER: Isler K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2657741 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)?

Isler Karin K Van Schaik Carel P CP

Biology letters 20090201 1

The expensive brain hypothesis predicts an interspecific link between relative brain size and life-history pace. Indeed, animals with relatively large brains have reduced rates of growth and reproduction. However, they also have increased total lifespan. Here we show that the reduction in production with increasing brain size is not fully compensated by the increase in lifespan. Consequently, the maximum rate of population increase (rmax) is negatively correlated with brain mass. This result is ...[more]

PMID: 18842563

Similar Datasets

Project description:Many birds and mammals drastically reduce their energy expenditure during times of cold exposure, food shortage, or drought, by temporarily abandoning euthermia, i.e. the maintenance of high body temperatures. Traditionally, two different types of heterothermy, i.e. hypometabolic states associated with low body temperature (torpor), have been distinguished: daily torpor, which lasts less than 24 h and is accompanied by continued foraging, versus hibernation, with torpor bouts lasting consecutive days to several weeks in animals that usually do not forage but rely on energy stores, either food caches or body energy reserves. This classification of torpor types has been challenged, suggesting that these phenotypes may merely represent extremes in a continuum of traits. Here, we investigate whether variables of torpor in 214 species (43 birds and 171 mammals) form a continuum or a bimodal distribution. We use Gaussian-mixture cluster analysis as well as phylogenetically informed regressions to quantitatively assess the distinction between hibernation and daily torpor and to evaluate the impact of body mass and geographical distribution of species on torpor traits. Cluster analysis clearly confirmed the classical distinction between daily torpor and hibernation. Overall, heterothermic endotherms tend to be small; hibernators are significantly heavier than daily heterotherms and also are distributed at higher average latitudes (?35°) than daily heterotherms (?25°). Variables of torpor for an average 30 g heterotherm differed significantly between daily heterotherms and hibernators. Average maximum torpor bout duration was >30-fold longer, and mean torpor bout duration >25-fold longer in hibernators. Mean minimum body temperature differed by ?13°C, and the mean minimum torpor metabolic rate was ?35% of the basal metabolic rate (BMR) in daily heterotherms but only 6% of BMR in hibernators. Consequently, our analysis strongly supports the view that hibernators and daily heterotherms are functionally distinct groups that probably have been subject to disruptive selection. Arguably, the primary physiological difference between daily torpor and hibernation, which leads to a variety of derived further distinct characteristics, is the temporal control of entry into and arousal from torpor, which is governed by the circadian clock in daily heterotherms, but apparently not in hibernators.

Dataset Information

Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)?

Publications

Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets