Do elevational range size, abundance, and body size patterns mirror those documented for geographic ranges? A case study using Costa Rican rodents

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 435-454

  McCain, Christy M ^a  

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

Author keywords

Abundance; Body size; Costa Rica; Elevation; Mammals; Range size; Rodents

Indexed keywords

MAMMALIA; RODENTIA;

EID: 33645789989     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anderson, R.P. and Timm, R.M. 2006. A new montane species of spiny pocket mouse (Rodentia: Heteromyidae: Heteromys) from northwestern Costa Rica. Am. Mus. Novitates, 3509: 1-38.
2. Anderson, S.D. 1982. Comparative population ecology of Peromyscus mexicanus in a Costa Rican wet forest. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
3. Blackburn, T.M. and Ruggiero. A. 2001. Latitude, elevation and body mass variation in Andean passerine birds. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10: 245-259.
4. Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J., Quinn, R.M., Arnold, H. and Gregory, R.D. 1997. Of mice and wrens: the relation between abundance and geographic range size in British mammals and birds. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 352: 419-427.
5. Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J. and Duncan, R.P. 2001. Population density and geographical range size in the introduced and native passerine faunas of New Zealand. Diversity and Distributions, 7: 209-221.
6. Brown, J.H. 1984. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am. Nat., 124: 255-279.
7. Brown, J.H. 1995. Macroecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8. Brown, J.H., Mehlman, D.W. and Stevens, G.C. 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology, 76: 2028-2043.
9. 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.
10. Carleton, M.D. and Musser, G.G. 1995. Systematic studies of oryzomyine rodents (Muridae: Sigmodontinae): definition and distribution of Oligoryzomys vegatus (Bangs, 1902). Proc. Bio. Soc. Wash., 108: 338-369.
11. Channell, R. and Lomolino, M.V. 2000a. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature, 403: 84-86.
12. Channell, R. and Lomolino, M.V. 2000b. Trajectories to extinction: spatial dynamics of the contraction of geographical ranges. J. Biogeogr., 27: 169-179.
13. Dennis, R.L.H., Donato, B., Sparks, T.H. and Pollard, E. 2000. Ecological correlates of island incidence and geographic range among British butterflies. Biodivers. Conserv., 9: 343-359.
14. Diamond, J.M. 1978. Niche shifts and the rediscovery of interspecific competition. Am. Sci., 66: 322-331.
15. Fleming, T. 1974. The population ecology of two species of Costa Rican heteromyid rodents. Ecology, 55: 493-510.
16. Gaston, K.J. 1990. Patterns in the geographical ranges of species. Biol. Rev., 65: 105-129.
17. Gaston, K.J. 1996. Species richness: measure and measurement. In Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference (K.J. Gaston, ed.), pp. 77-113. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
18. Gaston, K.J. 2003. The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. 1996. Global scale macroecology: interactions between population size, geographic range size and body size in the Anseriformes. J. Anim. Ecol., 65: 701-714.
20. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. 2000. Pattern and Process in Macroecology. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
21. Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Gregory, R.D. 1997a. Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: range position and phylogeny. Ecography, 20: 390-399.
22. Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Gregory, R.D. 1997b. Abundance-range size relationships of breeding and wintering birds in Britain: a comparative analysis. Ecography, 20: 569-579.
23. Grinnell, J. 1917. Field tests of theories concerning distributional control. Am. Nat., 51: 115-128.
24. Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.
25. Heaney, L.R. 2001. Small mammal diversity along elevational gradients in the Philippines: an assessment of patterns and hypotheses. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10: 15-39.
26. Hengeveld, R. and Haeck, J. 1982. The distribution of abundance. 1. Measurements. J. Biogeogr., 9: 303-316.
27. Hunter, J.T. 2003. Factors affecting range size differences for plant species on rock outcrops in eastern Australia. Diversity and Distributions, 9: 211-220.
28. Johnson, C.N. 1998. Rarity in the tropics: latitudinal gradients in distribution and abundance in Australian mammals. J. Anim. Ecol., 67: 689-698.
29. Lacy, R.C. and Bock, C.E. 1986. The correlation between range size and local abundance of some North American birds. Ecology, 67: 258-260.
30. Li, J.S., Song, Y.L. and Zeng, Z.G. 2003. Elevational gradients of small mammal diversity on the northern slopes of Mt. Qilian, China. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 12: 449-460.
31. McCain, C.M. 2004. The mid-domain effect applied to elevational gradients: species richness of small mammals in Costa Rica. J. Biogeogr., 31: 19-31.
32. McCain, C.M. 2005. Elevational gradients in diversity of small mammals. Ecology, 86: 366-372.
33. McGill, B. and Collins, C. 2003. A unified theory of macroecology based on spatial patterns of abundance. Evol. Ecol. Res., 5: 469-492.
34. Md. Nor, S. 2001. Elevational diversity patterns of small mammals on Mount Kinabalu, Malaysia. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10: 41-62.
35. Nichols, J.D. and Conroy, M.J. 1996. Estimation of species richness. In Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals (D.E. Wilson, F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran and M.S. Foster, eds.), pp. 226-234. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
36. Pielou, E.C. 1979. Biogeography. New York: Wiley.
37. Quinn, R.M., Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Eversham, B.C. 1997. Abundance-range size relationships of macrolepidoptera in Britain: the effects of taxonomy and life history variables. Ecol. Entomol., 22: 453-461.
38. Reid, F.A. 1997. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Rexstad, E. and Burnham, K.P. 1991. User's Guide for Interactive Program CAPTURE: Abundance Estimation of Closed Animal Populations. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.
40. Ruggiero, A. and Lawton, J.H. 1998. Are there latitudinal and altitudinal Rapoport effects in the geographic ranges of Andean passerine birds? Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 63: 283-304.
41. Solonen, T. 1994. Finnish bird fauna: species dynamics and adaptive constraints. Ornis Fenn., 71: 81-94.
42. Stevens, G.C. 1992. The elevational gradient in altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport's latitudinal rule to altitude. Am. Nat., 140: 893-911.
43. SYSTAT. 1998. SYSTAT, Version 9. Port Richmond, CA: SYSTAT Software, Inc.
44. Terborgh, J. 1971. Distribution on environmental gradients: theory and a preliminary interpretation of distributional patterns in the avifauna of the Cordillera Vilcabamba, Peru. Ecology, 52: 23-40.
45. Terborgh, J. 1977. Bird species diversity on an Andean elevational gradient. Ecology, 58: 1007-1019.
46. Terborgh, J. 1985. The role of ecotones in the distribution of Andean birds. Ecology, 66: 1237-1246.
47. Terborgh, J. and Weske, J.S. 1975. The role of competition in the distribution of Andean birds. Ecology, 56: 562-576.
48. Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G. and Gaston, K.J. 1998. Abundance-range size relationships in the herbaceous flora of central England. J. Ecol., 86: 439-448.
49. Whittaker, R.H. 1952. A study of summer foliage insect communities in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr., 22: 1-44.
50. Whittaker, R.H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr., 26: 1-80.
51. Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol. Monogr., 30: 279-338.
52. Whittaker, R.H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol. Rev., 42: 207-264.
53. Whittaker, R.H. and Niering, W.A. 1965. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology, 46: 429-452.