Evaluating scaling models in biology using hierarchical Bayesian approaches

Theoretical models for allometric relationships between organismal form and function are typically tested by comparing a single predicted relationship with empirical data. Several prominent models, however, predict more than one allometric relationship, and comparisons among alternative models have not taken this into account. Here we evaluate several different scaling models of plant morphology within a hierarchical Bayesian framework that simultaneously fits multiple scaling relationships to three large allometric datasets. The scaling models include: inflexible universal models derived from biophysical assumptions (e.g. elastic similarity or fractal networks), a flexible variation of a fractal network model, and a highly flexible model constrained only by basic algebraic relationships. We demonstrate that variation in intraspecific allometric scaling exponents is inconsistent with the universal models, and that more flexible approaches that allow for biological variability at the species level outperform universal models, even when accounting for relative increases in model complexity.

[1]  P. Dellaportas,et al.  BAYESIAN ANALYSIS OF ERRORS-IN-VARIABLES REGRESSION MODELS , 1995 .

[2]  P. J. Edwards,et al.  World Forest Biomass and Primary Production Data. , 1983 .

[3]  P. Klinkhamer Plant allometry: The scaling of form and process , 1995 .

[4]  Charles A Price,et al.  Scaling mass and morphology in leaves: an extension of the WBE model. , 2007, Ecology.

[5]  Geoffrey B. West,et al.  The predominance of quarter-power scaling in biology , 2004 .

[6]  James H. Brown,et al.  A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems , 1999, Nature.

[7]  James S. Clark,et al.  HIERARCHICAL BAYES FOR STRUCTURED, VARIABLE POPULATIONS: FROM RECAPTURE DATA TO LIFE‐HISTORY PREDICTION , 2005 .

[8]  James S. Clark,et al.  Capturing diversity and interspecific variability in allometries: A hierarchical approach , 2008 .

[9]  T. McMahon,et al.  Tree structures: deducing the principle of mechanical design. , 1976, Journal of theoretical biology.

[10]  Eric J. Deeds,et al.  Sizing Up Allometric Scaling Theory , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  Stephanie A. Bohlman,et al.  Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth and mortality in tropical forests. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[12]  J. Sperry,et al.  Water transport in plants obeys Murray's law , 2003, Nature.

[13]  Charles A Price,et al.  A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  A. Heusner Energy metabolism and body size. I. Is the 0.75 mass exponent of Kleiber's equation a statistical artifact? , 1982, Respiration physiology.

[15]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[16]  Kiona Ogle,et al.  Bayesian Data—Model Integration in Plant Physiological and Ecosystem Ecology , 2008 .

[17]  Alan E. Gelfand,et al.  Model choice: A minimum posterior predictive loss approach , 1998, AISTATS.

[18]  James H. Brown,et al.  A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology , 1997, Science.

[19]  Hanns-Christof Spatz,et al.  Growth and hydraulic (not mechanical) constraints govern the scaling of tree height and mass. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  C. Elzinga,et al.  Observer variation in tree diameter measurements. , 2005 .

[21]  M. Rubner,et al.  Ueber den Einfluss der Körpergrösse auf Stoff- und Kraftwechsel , 1883 .

[22]  F. Bokma Evidence against universal metabolic allometry , 2004 .

[23]  T. McMahon,et al.  Size and Shape in Biology , 1973, Science.

[24]  Joshua S. Weitz,et al.  Ontogenetically stable hydraulic design in woody plants , 2006 .

[25]  Karl J. Niklas,et al.  Biological scaling: Does the exception prove the rule? , 2007, Nature.

[26]  R. Peters The Ecological Implications of Body Size , 1983 .

[27]  M. Kleiber Body size and metabolism , 1932 .

[28]  John K Kruschke,et al.  Bayesian data analysis. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[29]  C. R. White,et al.  Mammalian basal metabolic rate is proportional to body mass2/3 , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  D. S. Glazier,et al.  The 3/4-Power Law Is Not Universal: Evolution of Isometric, Ontogenetic Metabolic Scaling in Pelagic Animals , 2006 .

[31]  David Kenfack,et al.  Comparing tropical forest tree size distributions with the predictions of metabolic ecology and equilibrium models. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[32]  W. Calder Size, Function, and Life History , 1988 .

[33]  Federico Magnani,et al.  Sanio's laws revisited. Size-dependent changes in the xylem architecture of trees. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[34]  M. Westoby,et al.  Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry , 2006, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[35]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations , 1998 .

[36]  Tommaso Anfodillo,et al.  Convergent tapering of xylem conduits in different woody species. , 2006, The New phytologist.