Background All behaviour requires energy, and measuring energy expenditure in standard units (joules) is key to linking behaviour to ecological processes. Animal-borne accelerometers are commonly used to infer proxies of energy expenditure, termed 'dynamic body acceleration' (DBA). However, converting acceleration proxies (m/s(2)) to standard units (watts) involves costly in-lab respirometry measurements, and there is a lack of viable substitutes for empirical calibration relationships when these are unavailable.

Methods We used past allometric work quantifying energy expenditure during resting and locomotion as a function of body mass to calibrate DBA. We used the resulting 'power calibration equation' to estimate daily energy expenditure (DEE) using two models: (1) locomotion data-based linear calibration applied to the waking period, and Kleiber's law applied to the sleeping period (ACTIWAKE), and (2) locomotion and resting data-based linear calibration applied to the 24-h period (ACTIREST24). Since both models require locomotion speed information, we developed an algorithm to estimate speed from accelerometer, gyroscope, and behavioural annotation data. We applied these methods to estimate DEE in free-ranging meerkats (Suricata suricatta), and compared model estimates with published DEE measurements made using doubly labelled water (DLW) on the same meerkat population.

Results ACTIWAKE's DEE estimates did not differ significantly from DLW (t(19) = - 1.25; P = 0.22), while ACTIREST24's estimates did (t(19) = - 2.38; P = 0.028). Both models underestimated DEE compared to DLW: ACTIWAKE by 14% and ACTIREST by 26%. The inter-individual spread in model estimates of DEE (s.d. 1-2% of mean) was lower than that in DLW (s.d. 33% of mean).

Conclusions We found that linear locomotion-based calibration applied to the waking period, and a 'flat' resting metabolic rate applied to the sleeping period can provide realistic joule estimates of DEE in terrestrial mammals. The underestimation and lower spread in model estimates compared to DLW likely arise because the accelerometer only captures movement-related energy expenditure, whereas DLW is an integrated measure. Our study offers new tools to incorporate body mass (through allometry), and changes in behavioural time budgets and intra-behaviour changes in intensity (through DBA) in acceleration-based field assessments of daily energy expenditure.