Week 8: Assembly of Continental Biota

BROWN CHAPTER SIX
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter six discusses patterns of geographic range. I summarize the chapter in semi-bullet point format below.
There are three general constraints to range limits:
1) Maximum size is limited by available space (a.k.a. a North American terrestrial organism is limited by the size of the continent)
2) An apparently constant minimum population density as illustrated in figure 5.7a
3) The relative limits associated with the niche requirements of a species
Species with large ranges tend to be more abundant within their ranges than species with smaller ranges.
Body size constrains geographic range because body size constrains abundance: species with large body size have lower abundance.
However, small populations are generally at greater risk of extinction, so large animals tend to have larger ranges. Most large animals with small ranges are considered threatened or endangered.
There appears to be a limit on minimum range size, and this seems to positively correlate with body size.
Rapoport (1982) found that there is a consistent perimeter to area ration of animal ranges of 10, suggesting some fractal properties of range size.
For North American vertebrates, smaller ranges tend to be larger north-south and larger ranges tend to be larger east-west. This is likely related to the north-south orientation of most North American mountain ranges, river valleys, and coastlines. There is an opposite trend in Europe where major land formations run east-west.
Rapoport’s rule: the bigger the average latitude of a species’ range, the larger the latitudinal range.
Similarly, the higher the center of the elevational range, the larger the elevational range.
There are several hypotheses for the two above trends:
1) The North American continent is narrows as lower latitudes, “squishing” habitats and associated organisms’ ranges.
2) Lower latitudes are generally more stable and abiotically favorable. This does not restrict this hypothesis to North America.
3) Because lower latitudes have less yearly temperature variation, organisms are more specialized to specific climates. Therefore, elevational gradients on mountain ranges provide a greater barrier to population movement. (Mountains are “higher” in the tropics)
4) Climatic variation in the Pleistocene has resulted in species that are adapted to climate variation. Because organisms at higher latitudes have been exposed to more climate variation, they are more adapted to climate variation, and therefore occupy habitats with a wider range of climates.
5) Diversity increases at lower latitudes. Therefore there is more competition at lower latitudes and species are restricted to the habitats that they are most adapted to. At higher latitudes, there is less competition so species can occupy areas at the limits of their ideal habitats.
_____________________________________________
Spatial Response of Mammals to Late Quaternary Environmental Fluctuations
Graham et. al.
Science vol. 272 no. 5268 p. 1601-1606
June 14, 1996
This study looks at general patterns of range change in mammals in the Holocene and Pleistocene. Generally, species’ ranges moved north or south in correlation with major warm and cool periods, but different species ranges changed at different rates and not necessarily to the same degree. This means that community species compositions were not consistent.
Of the species studied, the nine-banded armadillo, northern pygmy mouse, hispid cotton rat, meadow jumping mouse, and least weasel still seem to be adjusting their ranges to the current climate.
Some species moved longitudinally instead of latitudinally in response to postglacial warming: the least shrew and other moved east, and the northern pocket gopher and others moved west.
Other species do not appear to have undergone any substantial range changes in the last 20,000 years including the eastern woodrat, and the northern pygmy mouse. These species tend to live in the southern United States.

Comments

  1. Hello everyone,

    Sorry I will not be able to be in class today. My grandmother was hospitalized and is now in critical conditions so I'll be making an emergency trip to Kansas today.

    Sincerely
    Oscar

    ReplyDelete
  2. "For North American vertebrates, smaller ranges tend to be larger latitudinally and larger ranges tend to be larger longitudinally. This is likely related to the north-south orientation of most North American mountain ranges, river valleys, and coastlines." I'm really having a hard time trying to visualize this, could we possibly go over this in class? I need clarification.

    I'm also looking at my USGS map, and yes there are lots of rivers that run N-S, but there are just as may that run E-W in the center of the US. There are many E-W rivers that drain to N-S rivers. This would make sense hydrologically because water is flowing off of mountain ranges, E-W, and then finding their way to the Gulf, N-S. I also remember being asked during my defense what direction most rivers flow, and I remember saying N-S, and I remember my committee not liking my answer very much. So I'm not sure saying that most rivers flow N-S is actually accurate, but I digress.

    Graham et al., 1996

    I wonder if we were to look at range and body size if we would still see the same patterns presented in Jim's book. I would think that mechanisms influencing body size and range distribution should be about the same, even if diversity and the actual species are arranged differently. They should still be constrained similarly with relation to body size.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey guys, sorry this is late, gotta get on track, just had a busy week. The paper was awesome I must say!! I love faunmap so this may cause me to love it even more. It is a slightly wordy paper so talking in class about it today will really clear it up for me. I understand what they did and mostly the results. I am unsure of what a monte carlo is? Just a hypothetical species? The closing sentence makes for a wonderful end. I will post on the chapter after my next class!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. A few ponderings:

    1) In the paper about FAUNMAP, it shows pretty clearly that certain species substantially shifted ranges due to climatic/environmental change. I wonder, though, if this pattern is the norm or if adapting locally is the norm?

    2) I had never thought about the hypothesis that Jim proposes about during glacial/interglacial times there was a selection placed on animals to have broader aboitic tolerances. However, I believe that this diversity gradient still exists prior to the glacial cycles, so I wonder how robust this hypothesis is.

    3) I don't understand figure 6.9. It does make sense to me that mean elevation is being plotted against total elevational range.

    4) What I liked best about the paper is how it highlights non-analogue communities. I love that things we see today were not the same in the past. It makes me wonder how different ecological processes were in the past too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting paper and interesting chapter. As far as the river systems go, would it not be reasonable to assume that most major rivers flow N-S, while many smaller rivers run E-W? If you look at it that way, it makes sense why animals would be more limited by rivers running in the N-S direction because they are wider/deeper than the E-W rivers.

    I was wondering how moving to a new territory in response to climate change effects other adaptations. I.e, if you have to move south because it's getting too cold in your normal range, how do you have to adapt to the new range? How does this relate to remaining in your own territory and adapting to colder weather?

    My brain is systematically trying to kill me, so I'm going to go take a nap. I'll keep and eye on the blog and see you guys in class.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this paper has really interesting implications for the climate change event that is currently beginning. I think many "neontologists" assumed that communities would shift their ranges in tandem in response to climate change before this paper came out. Now that's questionable -- which species will shift? Which will adapt in situ? How will this effect species interactions? It's a highly complex system.

    The analysis shown in the last figure of this paper is based on Dice's coefficient, which is one of several diversity coefficients. The intent here is to show how much the similarity between two sites decreases as you look at sites that are farther away from each other. The Monte Carlo simulation randomly samples the species pool (with replacement) to create hypothetical random sites. These are then compared to the real sites - you can see the real sites are significantly more different then you'd expect them to be based on chance.

    Melissa, my impression of the north/south range boundary issue is that it is the north/south mountain ranges, such as the Rockies, that are more important for creating range boundaries, and large rivers such as the Mississippi River contribute to that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry about the lateness yet again. I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter as usual. I haven't been able to go into the biogeographical study in detail but this chapter really layed it out well. I'm sorry this is a terrible comment. I'll speak up in class!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts