Talk:Metabolic theory of ecology

message: My understanding of the literature is that this is a bogus theory, but that it's simplicity is so appealing that it has become well cited and well known. The original paper now has almost 900 citations, but i think is fundamentally flawed. It seems that vitriolic attacks by the West/Brown/Enquist/Savage research group on their critics (see 
SAVAGE, ENQUIST and WEST reply to Chaui-Berlinck's criticisms http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/210/21/3873) and good publicity have played a role in perpetuating this theory, of which this wikipedia article is a good example. Here are some recent quotes from the literature. Please could someone integrate them into the page:
" We conclude that the MTE should be abandoned as a monolithic explanation for allometric patterns, and that a more realistic path toward a better understanding of allometry would be to consider multiple explanatory mechanisms for physiological allometries."
Michael P. O'Connor, Stanley J. Kemp, Salvatore J. Agosta, Frank Hansen, Annette E. Sieg, Bryan P. Wallace, James N. McNair, Arthur E. Dunham (2007) Reconsidering the mechanistic basis of the metabolic theory of ecology
Oikos 116 (6) , 1058–1072 doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15534.x 
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15534.x
"First we show that to make WBE's model mathematically consistent either metabolic rate must be directly proportional to body mass (recall that the model is aimed to explain the 3/4 exponent for metabolic rate) or one of the basic model assumptions, that is, the size-invariance of terminal supplying vessels, must be violated. Then we show that animals built according to WBE's model cannot represent a broad range of sizes, because for large animals the volume of blood vessels would exceed body volume. Later we demonstrate that many features of the plant vascular system, insect tracheal system, vertebrate lung or vertebrate cardiovascular system do not conform to WBE's model assumptions. Finally, we argue that 3/4 scaling for metabolic rate is by no means universal, and therefore WBE's model was built to explain a non-existent pattern"
J. Kozłowski, M. Konarzewski (2004) Is West, Brown and Enquist's model of allometric scaling mathematically correct and biologically relevant?
Functional Ecology 18 (2) , 283–289 doi:10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00830.x https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00830.x
"It is demonstrated that the minimization procedure is mathematically incorrect and ill-posed. Also, it is shown that none of the connecting conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, it is concluded that the fractal model lacks self-consistency and correct statement: it relies on strong assumptions of homogeneity in morpho-physiological features among organisms instead of demonstrating them, as claimed by its authors. It is proposed that empiricists and theoreticians should rather evaluate the frameworks for addressing metabolic scaling phenomena."
A critical understanding of the fractal model of metabolic scaling
José Guilherme Chaui-Berlinck Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3045-3054 (2006) http://jeb.biologists.org/content/209/16/3045
Hectorguinness (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see none of these addressed or included in the article, even though there is a dedicated section, so I will add a flag
 Ninamarn (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms