Incomplete sampling of geographic ranges weakens or reverses the positive relationship between an animal species' geographic range size and its body size

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 607-617

  Madin, Joshua S ^a   Lyons, S Kathleen ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Body size; Latitude; Mammals; Partial sampling; Range size

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; MAMMALIA;

EID: 20444452092     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J., Quinn, R.M. and Gregory, R.D. 1999. Do local abundances of British birds change with proximity to range edge? J. Biogeogr., 26: 493-505.
2. Brown, J.H. 1995. Macroecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Brown, J.H. and Maurer, B.A. 1987. Evolution of species assemblages: effects of energetic constraints and species dynamics on the diversification of the North American avifauna. Am. Nat., 130: 1-17.
4. Brown, J.H., Mehlman, D.W. and Stevens, G.C. 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology, 76: 2028-2043.
5. Brown, J.H., Stevens, G.C. and Kaufman, D.M. 1996. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 27: 597-623.
6. Cambefort, Y. 1994. Body size, abundance and geographical distribution of Afrotropical dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Acta Oecol., 15: 165-179.
7. Carter, R.N. and Prince, S.D. 1985. The effect of climate on plant distributions. In The Climatic Scene (M.J. Tooley and J. Sheail, eds.), pp. 235-254. London: Allen & Unwin.
8. Damuth, J. 1981. Population-density and body size in mammals. Nature, 290: 699-700.
9. Damuth, J. 1987. Interspecific allometry of population-density in mammals and other animals - the independence of body-mass and population energy-use. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 31: 193-246.
10. Gaston, K.J. 1990. Patterns in the geographical ranges of species. Biol. Rev., 65: 105-129.
11. Gaston, K.J. 2003. The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. 1996. Range size-body size relationships: evidence of scale dependence. Oikos, 75: 479-485.
13. Gaston, K.J., Quinn, R.M., Wood, S. and Arnold, H.R. 1996. Measures of geographic range size: the effects of sample size. Ecography, 19: 259-268.
14. Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Lawton, J.H. 1997. Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. J. Anim. Ecol., 66: 579-601.
15. Gilbert, N. 1980. Comparative dynamics of a single-host aphid. I. The evidence. J. Anim. Ecol., 49: 351-369.
16. Pagel, M.P., May, R.M. and Collie, A.R. 1991. Ecological aspects of the geographic distribution and diversity of mammal species. Am. Nat., 137: 791-815.
17. Patterson, B.D., Geballos, G., Sechrest, W. et al. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, Version 1.0. Arlington, VA: Nature Serve (available at: www.natureserve.org/getData/ mammalmaps.jsp).
18. Rapoport, E.H. 1982. Areography: Geographical Strategies of Species. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
19. Root, T. 1991. Positive correlation between range sizes and body size: a possible mechanism. Acta XX Congr. Int. Ornithol., pp. 817-825.
20. Smith, F.A., Lyons, S.K., Ernest, S.K.M. et al. 2003. The body mass of late Quaternary mammals. Ecology, 84: 3403.
21. Thomas, C.D., Jordano, D., Lewis, O.T. et al. 1998. Butterfly distributional patterns, processes and conservation. In Conservation in a Changing World (G.M. Mace, A. Balmford and J.R. Ginsberg, eds.), pp. 107-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.