Latitudinal range variation of trees in the United States: A reanalysis of the applicability of rapoport's rule

Professional Geographer

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 115-130

  Lane, Chad S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Latitudinal range; Macroecology; Rapoport's rule; United States

Indexed keywords

MACROECOLOGY; POPULATION ECOLOGY; RANGE EXPANSION; RANGE SIZE; TREE;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33846512879     PISSN: 00330124     EISSN: 14679272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00595.x     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Almeida-Neto, M., G. Machado, R. Pinto-da-Rocha, and A. A. Giaretta. 2006. Harvestman (Arachnida: Opiliones) species distribution along three Neotropical elevational gradients: An alternative rescue effect to explain Rapoport's rule? Journal of Biogeography 33:361-75.
2. ArcView GIS (GIS software). Version 3.2. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
3. Arita, H. T., P. Rodríguez, and E. Vázquez-Domínguez. 2005. Continental and regional ranges of North American mammals: Rapoport's rule in real and null worlds. Journal of Biogeography 32:961-71.
4. Blackburn, T. M. 2004. Method in macroecology. Basic and Applied Ecology 5 (5): 401-12.
5. Blackburn, T. M., and K. J. Gaston. 1998. Some methodological issues in macroecology. American Naturalist 151 (1): 68-83.
6. Brown, J. H., and B. A. Maurer. 1989. Macroecology: The division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243:1145-50.
7. Chatzaki, M., P. Lymberakis, G. Markakis, and M. Mylonas. 2005. The distribution of ground spiders (Araneae, Gnaphosidae) along the altitudinal gradient of Crete, Greece: Species richness, activity and altitudinal range. Journal of Biogeography 32:813-31.
8. Cowlishaw, G., and J. E. Hacker. 1997. Distribution, diversity, and latitude in African primates. American Naturalist 150 (4): 505-12.
9. Cowlishaw, G., and J. E. Hacker. 1998. Too much latitude for Rapoport's rule? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13 (6): 241-42.
10. Crutchfield, W. B., and E. L. Little. 1966. Geographic distribution of the pines of the world. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
11. Cruz, F. B., L. A. Fitzgerald, R. E. Espinoza, and J. A. Schulte II. 2005. The importance of phylogenetic scale in tests of Bergmann's and Rapoport's rules: Lessons from a clade of South American lizards. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18:1559-74.
12. Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 1981. Vegetation maps for eastern North America: 40,000 years B.P. to the present. In Geobotany II, ed. R. C. Romans, 123-65. New York: Plenum.
13. Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 1983. Late-Quaternary vegetational dynamics and community stability reconsidered. Quaternary Research 19:265-71.
14. Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 1987. Long-term forest dynamics of the temperate zone: A case study of late-Quaternary forests in eastern North America. New York: Springer-Verlag.
15. Elias, T. S. 1980. The complete trees of North America. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
16. Elliott-Fisk, D. L. 2000. The taiga and boreal forest. In North American terrestrial vegetation, ed. M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings, 41-73. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
17. Farrar, J. L. 1995. Trees of the northern United States and Canada. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
18. Folgarait, P. J., O. Bruzzone, S. D. Porter, M. A. Pesquero, and L. E. Gilbert. 2005. Biogeography and macroecology of phorid flies that attack fire ants in south-eastern Brazil and Argentina. Journal of Biogeography 32 (2): 353-67.
19. Fortes, R. R., and R. S. Absalao. 2004. The applicability of Rapoport's rule to the marine molluscs of the Americas. Journal of Biogeography 31 (12): 1909-16.
20. Garcillan, P. P., E. Ezcurra, and H. Riemann. 2003. Distribution and species richness of woody dryland legumes in Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Vegetation Science 14 (4): 475-86.
21. Gaston, K. J. 1991. How large is a species geographic range? Oikos 61 (3): 434-38.
22. Gaston, K. J. 1994. Measuring geographic range sizes. Ecography 17 (2): 198-205.
23. Gaston, K. J. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Gaston, K. J., and T. M. Blackburn. 2000. Patterns and process in macroecology. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Science.
25. Gaston, K. J., T. M. Blackburn, and R. D. Gregory. 1997. Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: Range position and phylogeny. Ecography 20 (4): 390-99.
26. Gaston, K. J., T. M. Blackburn, and J. I. Spicer. 1998. Rapoport's rule: Time for an epitaph? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13 (2): 70-74.
27. Gaston, K. J., R. M. Quinn, S. Wood, and H. R. Arnold. 1996. Measures of geographic range size: The effects of sample size. Ecography 19 (3): 259-68.
28. Harvey, P. H. 1996. Phylogenies for ecologists. Journal of Animal Ecology 65 (3): 255-63.
29. Hausdorf, B. 2006. Latitudinal and altitudinal diversity patterns and Rapoport effects in north-west European land snails and their causes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 87:309-23.
30. Hecnar, S. J. 1999. Patterns of turtle species' geographic range size and a test of Rapoport's rule. Ecography 22 (4): 436-46.
31. Hughes, L., E. M. Cawsey, and M. Westoby. 1996. Geographic and climatic range sizes of Australian eucalypts and a test of Rapoport's rule. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5 (3): 128-42.
32. Kolasa, J., C. L. Hewitt, and J. A. Drake. 1998. Rapoport's rule: An explanation or a byproduct of the latitudinal gradient in species richness? Biodiversity and Conservation 7 (11): 1447-55.
33. Larsen, J. A. 1980. The boreal ecosystem. New York: Academic Press.
34. Lawton, J. H. 1999. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177-92.
35. Letcher, A. J., and P. H. Harvey. 1994. Variation in geographical range size among mammals of the Palearctic. American Naturalist 144 (1): 30-42.
36. Little, E. L. 1971. Atlas of United States trees, volume 1: Conifers and important hardwoods. 4 vols. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
37. Little, E. L. 1976. Atlas of United States trees, volume 3: Minor western hardwoods. 4 vols. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
38. Little, E. L. 1977. Atlas of United States trees, volume 4: Minor eastern hardwoods. 4 vols. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
39. Mora, C., and D. R. Robertson. 2005. Causes of latitudinal gradients in species richness: A test with fishes of the tropical Eastern Pacific. Ecology 86 (7): 1771-82.
40. Morin, X., and I. Chuine. 2006. Niche breadth, competitive strength and range size of tree species: A trade-off based framework to understand species distribution. Ecology Letters 9:185-95.
41. Mourelle, C., and E. Ezcurra. 1997. Rapoport's rule: A comparative analysis between South and North American columnar cacti. American Naturalist 150 (1): 131-42.
42. Parmesan, C., S. Gaines, L. Gonzalez, D. M. Kaufman, J. Kingsolver, A. Townsend Peterson, and R. Sagarin. 2005. Empirical perspectives on species borders: From traditional biogeography to global change. Oikos 108 (1): 58-75.
43. Pielou, E. C. 1991. After the Ice Age: The return of life to glaciated North America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Price, T. D., A. J. Helbig, and A. D. Richman. 1997. Evolution of breeding distributions in the old world leaf warblers (genus Phylloscopus). Evolution 51 (2): 552-61.
45. Rangel, S. R., E. C. R. Zenteno, and M. D. Enriquez. 2002. The genus Quercus (Fagaceae) in the state of Mexico. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89:551-93.
46. Rapoport, E. H. 1975. Areografia: Estrategias geograficas de las especies [Areography: Geographical strategies of species]. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
47. Rapoport, E. H. 1982. Areography: Geographical strategies of species. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press.
48. Ricklefs, R. E., and R. E. Latham. 1992. Intercontinental correlation of geographical ranges suggests stasis in ecological traits of relict genera of temperate perennial herbs. American Naturalist 139:1305-21.
49. Rohde, K. 1996. Rapoport's rule is a local phenomenon and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Biodiversity Letters 3:10-13.
50. Rohde, K. 1999. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity and Rapoport's rule revisited: A review of recent work and what can parasites teach us about the causes of the gradients? Ecography 22 (6): 593-613.
51. Rohde, K., M. Heap, and D. Heap. 1993. Rapoports rule does not apply to marine teleosts and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species richness. American Naturalist 142 (1): 1-16.
52. Samyn, Y., and I. Tallon. 2005. Zoogeography of the shallow-water holothuroids of the western Indian Ocean. Journal of Biogeography 32:1523-38.
53. Smith, F. D. M., R. M. May, and P. H. Harvey. 1994. Geographical ranges of Australian mammals. The Journal of Animal Ecology 63:441-50.
54. SPSS Inc. 2004. SPSS Base 13.0 for Windows User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
55. Stevens, G. C. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: How so many species coexist in the tropics. American Naturalist 133 (2): 240-56.
56. United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 1999. Digital representation of "Atlas of United States Trees"by Elbert L. Little, Jr. http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/ (last accessed 30 March 2006).
57. Von Holle, B., H. R. Delcourt, and D. Simberloff. 2003. The importance of biological inertia in plant community resistance to invasion. Journal of Vegetation Science 14 (3): 425-32.