Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 78 (2): 313-321, 2005
RESEARCH ARTICLE
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 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.
Key words:
comparative
physiology, macrophysiology, endotherms, ectotherms, evolutionary physiology, physiological ecology
