Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday March 13 2020, @05:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the even-the-grim-reaper-fears-the-chihuahua dept.

Why do small dogs live longer than big dogs?:

Professor Elgar says the answer to the puzzle of canine lifespans can be found in data that charts "the schedule" of a species' rate of ageing.

This reflects the relationship between the age of an individual and how susceptible it is to dying. So while larger species typically live longer than smaller species, within a species smaller individuals could outlive larger individuals.

And this is particularly important when it come to dogs. A millennia of domestication and breeding means that dog breeds can vary in body size by up to 50 times.

Professor Elgar says that the research comparing size and age-related mortality in dogs shows that larger dogs die younger because they age significantly faster than smaller dogs.

A large study of 74 dog breeds in North America concluded "the driving force behind the trade-off between size and lifespan is apparently a strong positive relationship between size and ageing rate.

"We conclude that large dogs die young mainly because they age quickly."

Professor Elgar says that a larger dog, because of its size, may put more strain on its physiological processes, meaning they tend to wear out more quickly.

"Modern cars generally work well for eight or nine years, and then wear and tear sets in and they start falling apart. The speed with which they deteriorate varies between manufacturers. It's the same with dogs."

Dog morbidity rate is also impacted—as it is for humans—by lifestyle.

Just as young men aged 18 to 25 are more likely to die by misadventure, a working dog like a kelpie or sheepdog is more likely to die in an accident than a schnoodle whose only occupation is to look cute in its favourite chair.

Professor Elgar says the rule of thumb is that "the average lifespan for quite large dogs is about seven years, and 14 years for smaller dogs."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 13 2020, @06:04PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 13 2020, @06:04PM (#970794) Journal

    Rest heart rate and life expectancy. [nih.gov]

    Among mammals, there is an inverse semilogarithmic relation between heart rate and life expectancy. The product of these variables, namely, the number of heart beats/lifetime, should provide a mathematical expression that defines for each species a predetermined number of heart beats in a lifetime. Plots of the calculated number of heart beats/lifetime among mammals against life expectancy and body weight (allometric scale of 0.5 x 10(6)) are, within an order of magnitude, remarkably constant and average 7.3 +/- 5.6 x 10(8) heart beats/lifetime. [ . . . ]

    Also sea: http://robdunnlab.com/projects/beats-per-life/ [robdunnlab.com]

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Saturday March 14 2020, @10:31PM

    by ChrisMaple (6964) on Saturday March 14 2020, @10:31PM (#971346)

    Except for humans, who have about 4 times as many heartbeats per lifetime. This suggests that heartbeats per lifetime is not a fundamental limit, but rather a coincidental result of other factors.