Geographic range and body size in Neotropical marsupials

Global Ecology and Biogeography

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 439-444

  Olifiers, N ^a   Vieira, M V ^b   Grelle, C E V ^b  

^a INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Comparative method; Didelphidae; Latitude; Macroecology; Neotropics; PGLS model; Phylogeny

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; LATITUDE; MARSUPIAL; NEOTROPICAL REGION; PHYLOGENY; BIOGEOGRAPHY; LATITUDINAL GRADIENT; MACROECOLOGY; PHYLOGENETICS; RANGE SIZE;

DIDELPHIDAE; METATHERIA;

EID: 4344647038     PISSN: 1466822X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2004.00115.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Arita, H.T., Robinson, J.G. & Redford, K.H. (1990) Rarity in Neotropical forest mammals and its ecological correlates. Conservation Biology, 4, 181-192.
2. Ashton, K.G., Tracy, M.C. & Queiroz, A. (2000) Is Bergmann's rule valid for mammals? American Naturalist, 150, 390-415.
3. Blackburn, T.M. & Gaston, K.J. (1998) Some methodological issues in macroecology. American Naturalist, 151, 68-83.
4. Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J. & Loder, N. (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann's rule. Diversity and Distributions, 5, 165-174.
5. Blackburn, T.M. & Ruggiero, A. (2001) Latitude, elevation and body mass variation in Andean passerine birds. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 10, 245-259.
6. Bonfim, F.S., Diniz-Filho, J.A. & Bastos, R.P. (1998) Spatial patterns and the macroecology of South American viperid snakes. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 58, 97-103.
7. Brown, J.H. (1981) Two decades of homage to Santa Rosalia: toward a general theory of diversity. American Zoologist, 21, 877-888.
8. Brown, J.H. (1995) Macroecology. The University of Chicago Pres, Chicago.
9. Brown, J.H. & Maurer, B.A. (1987) Evolution of species assemblages: effects of energetic constraints and species dynamics on the diversification of the North American avifauna. American Naturalist, 130, 1-17.
10. Brown, J.H. & Maurer, B.A. (1989) Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Science, 243, 1145-1150.
11. Cardillo, M. (2002) The life-history basis of latitudinal diversity gradients: how do species traits vary from the poles to the equator? Journal of Animal Ecology, 71, 79-87.
12. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. (2004) Macroecology and the hierarchical expansion of evolutionary theory. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 13, 1-5.
13. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. & Balestra, R. (1998) Hierarchical effects on body size evolution and the macroecology of South American mammals. Ecologia Austral, 8, 23-30.
14. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. & Torres, N.M. (2002) Phylogenetic comparative methods and the geographic range size-body size relationship in New World terrestrial carnivora. Evolutionary Ecology, 16, 351-367.
15. Eisenberg, J.F. (1989) Mammals of the Neotropics, Vol. 1. The Northern Neotropics: Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
16. Eisenberg, J.F. & Redford, K.H. (1999) Mammals of the Neotropics, Vol. 3. The Central Neotropics: Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
17. Emmons, L. & Feer, F. (1997) Neotropical rainforest mammals. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
18. Felsenstein, J. (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, 125, 1-15.
19. Fonseca, G.A.B., Herrmann, G., Leite, Y.L.R., Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B. & Patton, J.L. (1996) Lista Anotada dos Mamíferos Brasileiros. Occasional Papers in Conservation Biology, 4, 1-38.
20. France, R. (1992) The North American latitudinal gradients in species richness and geographical rage of freshwater crayfish and amphipods. American Naturalist, 139, 342-354.
21. Freckleton, R.P., Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M. (2003) Bergmann's rule and body size in mammals. American Naturalist, 161, 821-825.
22. Gaston, K.J. (1990) Patterns in the geographical ranges of species. Biological Reviews, 65, 105-129.
23. Gaston, K.J. (1999) Why Rapoport's Rule does not generalise. Oikos, 84, 309-312.
24. Gaston, K.J. & Blackburn, T.M. (1996) Range size-body size relationships: evidence of scale dependence. Oikos, 75, 479-485.
25. Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. & Spicer, J.I. (1998) Rapoport's rule: time for an epitaph? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 70-74.
26. Geist, V. (1987) Bergmann's rule is invalid. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65, 1035-1038.
27. Glazier, D.S. (1980) Ecological shifts and the evolution of geographically restricted species of North American Peromyscus. (mice). Journal of Biogeography, 7, 63-83.
28. Gotelli, N.J. & Pyron, M. (1991) Life history variation in North American freshwater minnows: effects of latitude and phylogeny. Oikos, 62, 30-40.
29. Hallgrímsson, B. & Maiorana, V. (2000) Variability and size in mammals and birds. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 70, 571-595.
30. Harcourt, A.H. (2000) Latitude and latitudinal extent: a global analysis of the Rapoport effect in a tropical mammalian taxon: primates. Journal of Biogeography, 27, 1169-1182.
31. Harestad, A.S. & Bunnell, F.L. (1979) Home range and body weight - a re-evaluation. Ecology, 60, 389-402.
32. Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M.D. (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
33. Kelt, D.A. & Van Vuren, D.H. (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. American Naturalist, 157, 637-645.
34. Kirsch, J.A.W., Lapointe, F. & Springer, M.S. (1997) DNA-hybridisation studies of marsupials and their implications for metatherian classification. Australian Journal of Zoology, 45, 211-280.
35. Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. (1998) Numerical ecology: developments in environmental modelling, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
36. Lindsted, S.L., Miller, B.J. & Buskirk, S.W. (1986) Home range, time, and body size in mammals. Ecology, 67, 413-418.
37. Lyons, S.K. & Willig, M.R. (1997) Latitudinal patterns of range size: methodological concerns and empirical evaluations for New World bats and marsupials. Oikos, 79, 568-580.
38. Mantel, N. (1967) The detection of disease clustering and the generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 27, 209-220.
39. Martins, E.P. (2003) COMPARE, Version 4.5. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data. Distributed by the author at http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
40. Martins, E.P., Diniz-Filho, A.F. & Housworth, E.A. (2002) Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution, 56, 1-13.
41. Martins, E.P. & Hansen, T.F. (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist, 149, 646-667.
42. Maurer, B.A. (1999) Untangling ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
43. McNab, B.K. (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. American Naturalist, 97, 133-140.
44. Meiri, S. & Dayan, T. (2003) On the validity of Bergmann's rule. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 331-351.
45. Murray, B.R. & Dickman, C.R. (2000) Relationship between body size and range size among Australian mammals: has human impact distorted macroecological patterns? Ecography, 23, 92-100.
46. Murray, B.R., Fonseca, C.R. & Westoby, M. (1998) The macroecology of Australian frogs. Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 567-579.
47. Pagel, M.D., May, R.M. & Collie, A.R. (1991) Ecological aspects of the geographical distribution and diversity of mammalian species. American Naturalist, 137, 791-815.
48. Peters, R. (1983) Ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. Pyron, M. (1999) Relationships between geographical range size, body size, local abundance, and habitat breadth in North American suckers and sunfishes. Journal of Biogeography, 26, 549-558.
50. Rapoport, E.H. (1982) Areography: geographical strategies of species. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
51. Redford, K.H. & Eisenberg, J.F. (1992) Mammals of the Neotropics, Vol. 2. The Southern Cone: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. The Chicago University Press, Chicago.
52. Rohde, K. (1996) Rapoport's rule is a local phenomenon and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Biodiversity Letters, 3, 10-13.
53. Rosenfield, J.A. (2002) Pattern and process in the geographical ranges of freshwater fishes. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11, 323-342.
54. Ruggiero, A. (1994) Latitudinal correlates of the sizes of mammalian geographical ranges in South America. Journal of Biogeography, 21, 545-559.
55. Ruggiero, A., Lawton, J.H. & Blackburn, T.M. (1998) The geographic ranges of mammalian species in South America: spatial patterns in environmental resistance and anisotropy. Journal of Biogeography, 25, 1093-1103.
56. Sant'ana, C.E.R. & Diniz-Filho, J.A. (1999) Macroecologia de corujas (Aves, Strigiformes) da América do Sul. Ararajuba, 7, 3-11.
57. Stevens, G.C. (1989) The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. American Naturalist, 133, 240-256.
58. Taylor, C.M. & Gotelli, N.J. (1994) The macroecology of 'Cyprinella': correlates of phylogeny, body size, and geographical range. American Naturalist, 144, 549-569.
59. Vieira, C.M. & Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. (2000) Macroecologia de mamiferos Neotropicais com ocorrência no Cerrado. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 17, 973-988.