Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of model estimates of DEE with doubly labelled water measurements in meerkats

From: Combining accelerometry with allometry for estimating daily energy expenditure in joules when in-lab calibration is unavailable

DEE estimation method

Females

Males

Females + males

DEE (kJ)

Mass (g)

DEE (kJ)

Mass (g)

DEE (kJ)

Mass (g)

DLW

468 ± 89

(321–521)

N = 6

697 ± 68

(632–799)

576 ± 223

(278–941)

N = 6

749 ± 131

(591–922)

522 ± 172

(278–941)

N = 12

723 ± 103

(591–922)

ACTIWAKE

440 ± 4

(437–445)

N = 5 (23 days acc)

t(9) = − 0.68; P = 0.51

560 ± 42

(507–615)

t(9) = − 3.90; P = 0.004

461 ± 11

(448–471)

N = 4 (8 days acc)

t(8) = − 1.01; P = 0.34

670 ± 61

(593–721)

t(8) = − 1.10; P = 0.30

449 ± 13

(437–471)

N = 9 (31 days acc)

t(19) = − 1.25; P = 0.22

609 ± 75

(507–721)

t(19) = − 2.79; P = 0.012

ACTIREST24

389 ± 7

(381–399)

N = 5 (23 days acc)

t(9) = − 1.95; P = 0.082

as above

379 ± 9

(366–385)

N = 4 (8 days acc)

t(8) = − 1.73; P = 0.12

as above

384 ± 9

(366–399)

t(19) = − 2.38; P = 0.028

As above

  1. We found that ACTIWAKE’s estimates of daily energy expenditure (DEE) did not differ significantly from measurements made using the doubly labelled water method (DLW), while ACTIREST24’s estimates did (results of two-sample t-test in table). Both models underestimated DEE compared to DLW: ACTIWAKE by 14% (females and males pooled together), and ACTIREST24 by 26%. DLW measurements had greater spread (s.d. 33% of mean; all individuals pooled together) compared to ACTIWAKE’s estimates (3%). Published DLW data were available for 12 individuals (six females, six males). Our DEE model estimates were derived from 31 days of acceleration data collected from nine individuals (five females, four males)