Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Title, Abstract - Coggle Diagram

- - - - For experimental design, this experiment follows the scientific method discipline of allochthonous reasoning according to Voit (2019). This experiment will take place entirely in a digital space, focusing on compiling data points into figures and interpreting said figures in a scientific context. The treatment group in this case would be the birds, for which the data regarding them is what we want, while the mammals would then be the control group, since we are contrasting the data for birds against it.
    - - Subjects of this experiment include over 60 different species of birds and nearly 300 different species of mammals, all existing as data points in the Quaardvark database.
    - - For this experiment, certain parameters were put into the Quaardvark database to yield the desired data. This was to streamline the experiment down to the specific figures needed as per the hypothesis; BMR and body mass. Outlier data points were subsequently removed as well to better interpret most of the data in the final product. After compiling the acquired data points in Excel, these data were translated into figures via equation, such as averages and mass-specific data, for ease of interpretation in the conclusion.
    - - Findings
        
        The purpose of this research was to determine the specifics of the relationships between BMR and body mass for birds and mammals. As is evident in figure 1, the relationship between BMR and body mass for mammals is positively correlated and directly proportional, rather than inversely proportional as predicted by the hypothesis. It shows a linear correlation for both mammals and for birds, which also displayed a similar relationship in figure 2, although the data for birds more closely follows the line of best fit than the data for mammals. However, the data for mass-specific BMR shows an inversely proportional relationship with body mass, as predicted by the hypothesis for both birds and mammals, with the data for mammals more closely following the line of best fit in figure 3 than birds in figure 4. For mass, the hypothesis accurately predicted that mass for birds would be lower than for mammals as seen in figure 5, but inaccurately predicted the relationship for BMR, which was also lower for birds as seen in figure 6. For mass-specific BMR however, birds were higher than mammals as seen in figure 7. Bar graphs from figures 5, 6 and 7 derived from tables 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
      - Figures
        
        Figure 2: Positive linear correlation between BMR and body mass in birds.
        
        Figure 3: Negative curvilinear correlation between BMR and body mass for mammals.
        
        Figure 7: Bar graph detailing mass-specific BMR data for birds and mammals.
        
        Figure 1: Positive linear correlation between BMR and body mass in mammals.
        
        Figure 4: Negative curvilinear correlation between BMR and body mass for birds.
        
        Figure 5: Bar graph detailing body mass data for birds and mammals.
        
        Figure 6: Bar graph detailing BMR data for birds and mammals.
        
        Table 1: Calculations and equations used to achieve figure 5 bar graph detailing body mass data for birds and mammals.
        
        Table 2: Calculations and equations used to achieve figure 6 bar graph detailing BMR data for birds and mammals.
        
        Table 3: Calculations and equations used to achieve figure 7 bar graph detailing mass-specific BMR data for birds and mammals.
      - Discussion
        
        Findings
        
        Regarding the overall experiment, the hypotheses were partly rejected by the data. The key findings include the average BMR of birds as lower than that of mammals, not higher. However, in the case of mass-specific BMR, the hypotheses were supported by the data. In the results, the average mass-specific BMR for birds was higher than it was for mammals. While the statement that the average body mass of birds would be lower than mammals was supported by the data, the reasoning behind the hypothesis was rejected by it. As body mass increased for birds, so did BMR. This result was the same for mammals, as they had higher average body mass, resulting in birds having lower average BMR than mammals. These key findings indicate that the relationship between BMR and body mass for birds and mammals is one of direct proportionality when accounting for the weight of the species in grams as they appeared in Quaardvark. But when accounting mass-specific BMR, or energy consumed per gram of body weight, the inversely proportional data display the true nature of this correlation. Mass specific BMR for birds was higher than it was for mammals in figure 7, which indicates that energy expenditure for birds, whose average body mass was also lower than mammals in figure 5, is in fact greater than the energy expenditure of mammals, contrary to the results of the earlier figures. This supports the hypothesis that that energy expenditure over the lifetimes of birds is higher than that of mammals and leads to lower average body mass.
        
        Since there isn’t sufficient data in this experiment to further examine the hypothesis regarding energy expenditure over lifetimes, more experimentation on this subject would be required to better determine to what extent BMR impacts body mass over greater lengths of time and at different stages of development in birds. As for the findings in this research, it doesn’t seem to be entirely consistent with previous findings. Such as, the idea that larger animals tend to expend energy more than smaller animals do, as outlined by Speakman (2005). However, according to Glazier (2008), body mass is not necessarily proportional to metabolic rates, but possibly due to various physical factors specific to the individual. Nonetheless, the key finding makes for unexpected complications in determining a concrete outcome.
        
        In conclusion, the results of this research certainly indicate that the hypothesis was supported, giving credence to the idea that BMR and body mass may not be directly proportional, but rather differences could be due to specific environmental conditions or constraints. That BMR, despite initial results, ended up being higher for birds than mammals, is indicative of the idea that the specific environmental conditions faced by birds lead to lower average body mass and an inversely proportional higher BMR. The significance of these findings could aid in furthering research on the metabolic rates of birds and how they interact with and are affected by their environment, helping to determine more effective ways of conserving, or relocating specific species and meeting their needs in rehabilitation and their natural environment. The next steps for this experiment could include a more in depth look at the species studied in this experiment, determining their lifespans, as well as their feeding patterns to better understand the specifics of their metabolisms and how this data relates to the broader question as to whether the BMR of birds is determined by mass and environmental pressures.
        
        Literature Cited
        
        Voit E.O. 2019. Perspective: Dimensions of the scientific method. PLoS Computational Biology15(9): e1007279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pcbi.1007279.
        
        Speakman J.R. 2005. Body size, energy metabolism and lifespan. J Exp Biol. 208(9):1717-30. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01556
        
        Glazier D. S. 2008. Effects of Metabolic Level on the Body Size Scaling of Metabolic Rate in Birds and Mammals. Proceedings: Biological Sciences275(1641)1405–1410. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25249672