Evolution, Ecology, and Multimodal Distributions of Body Size

Cumming, Graeme S.; Havlicek, Tanya D.

doi:10.1007/s10021-002-0118-4

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Communities likely display similarly complex phylogenetic topologies (Heard and Cox 2007). We therefore suggest that, even in the absence of strong competition, many communities may a priori be expected to have relatively high VSR (see also Cumming and Havlicek 2002). …”

Section: Phylogenetic Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…However, this burgeoning field has developed, for the most part, independently from the large body of work that has focused upon ecological character displacement and the evidence for evolutionary divergence among interacting species (Dayan and Simberloff 2005; but see Davies et al 2007). In addition, the influence of phylogeny on the expected distribution of traits of cooccurring species has been largely overlooked in the literature on character displacement (but see Winkler 1984, andCumming andHavlicek 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, using simulations, we explored the relationship between phylogenetic tree shape and the expected distribution of traits at the tips of the phylogeny assuming a nondirectional, stochastic model of trait evolution. A close relationship between tree shape and trait distribution would suggest that the dispersion of traits within communities might vary even in the absence of general trends for directional or stabilizing selection, and may be explained simply by the shared evolutionary history of species Winkler 1984, Cumming andHavlicek 2002). Second, we evaluated the accuracy with which simulations match empirical data by comparing phylogenetic expectations with observed data on the distribution of body mass within mammal families.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using phylogenetic trees to test for character displacement: a model and an example from a desert mammal community

Davies

Cooper

Diniz‐Filho

et al. 2012

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The distribution of traits within communities is thought to provide information on the evolutionary and ecological forces that structure community composition. Ecological character displacement (evolutionary divergence among populations of interacting species within a community), as well as community-wide character displacement (even dispersion of species traits within a community via species sorting), have been widely reported and are typically interpreted as evidence for interspecific competition. However, defining an appropriate null distribution with which to assess the observed distribution of traits within a community has proved controversial. Phylogenetic methods provide an alternative approach to evaluating community structure, but such methods also require an appropriate null and have typically overlooked the potential for evolutionary dynamics within communities. Here, we present a novel phylogenetic framework that uses evolutionary expectations to generate a simple null model of the expected distribution of traits among co-occurring species. Using a stochastic Brownian motion model of trait change, we illustrate that the expected communitywide dispersion of traits varies with phylogenetic tree shape. We then use data on body mass for mammals to evaluate the accuracy with which phylogeny can predict the empirical distribution of traits and find a strong correlation between predicted and observed trait distributions. We suggest that deviations from phylogenetic expectations may therefore provide a useful tool for evaluating the role of competition in shaping community structure. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our approach using empirical data on body mass and a phylogeny for a small community of terrestrial mammals in Yotvata, Israel, and reveal evidence consistent with ecological and community-wide character displacement. Our method unites ecological and evolutionary approaches, and it provides a novel framework for exploring community structure.

show abstract

Section: Phylogenetic Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using phylogenetic trees to test for character displacement: a model and an example from a desert mammal community

Davies

Cooper

Diniz‐Filho

et al. 2012

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In studies of fish where species identity is of interest, maximum and asymptotic species' body sizes have been suggested as appropriate alternatives to mean size (Jennings et al ). These metrics may be particularly useful in the context of evaluating habitat–body size relationships, as maximum size is likely to be directly influenced by habitat structure in taxa with indeterminate growth (Cumming and Havlicek ). However, two issues arise from using maximum length, 1) fish exhibit growth patterns driven by location, latitude and exposure to fishing pressure (Choat and Robertson , DeMartini et al ), so obtaining maximum size data from published sources may introduce bias, and 2) species' maximum size is a summary metric and may not represent intra‐specific size variability any better than species' mean size.…”

Section: Different Indices Of Body Size Distribution Considered In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat structure and body size distributions: cross‐ecosystem comparison for taxa with determinate and indeterminate growth

Nash

Allen

Barichievy

et al. 2014

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat structure across multiple spatial and temporal scales has been proposed as a key driver of body size distributions for associated communities. Thus, understanding the relationship between habitat and body size is fundamental to developing predictions regarding the influence of habitat change on animal communities. Much of the work assessing the relationship between habitat structure and body size distributions has focused on terrestrial taxa with determinate growth, and has primarily analysed discontinuities (gaps) in the distribution of species mean sizes (species size relationships or SSRs). The suitability of this approach for taxa with indeterminate growth has yet to be determined. We provide a cross‐ecosystem comparison of bird (determinate growth) and fish (indeterminate growth) body mass distributions using four independent data sets. We evaluate three size distribution indices: SSRs, species size–density relationships (SSDRs) and individual size–density relationships (ISDRs), and two types of analysis: looking for either discontinuities or abundance patterns and multi‐modality in the distributions. To assess the respective suitability of these three indices and two analytical approaches for understanding habitat–size relationships in different ecosystems, we compare their ability to differentiate bird or fish communities found within contrasting habitat conditions. All three indices of body size distribution are useful for examining the relationship between cross‐scale patterns of habitat structure and size for species with determinate growth, such as birds. In contrast, for species with indeterminate growth such as fish, the relationship between habitat structure and body size may be masked when using mean summary metrics, and thus individual‐level data (ISDRs) are more useful. Furthermore, ISDRs, which have traditionally been used to study aquatic systems, present a potentially useful common currency for comparing body size distributions across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

show abstract

“…Havlicek and Carpenter (2001) compared body mass distributions in a set of experimental lakes, and reported that, despite changes in lake nutrient status and species composition, the multimodal body mass distributions of a wide range of species were conserved. Cumming and Havlicek (2002) used a cellular automaton model to evaluate body size distributions for 138 fish species. They found consistent modality in the data, and concluded that the structure detected was likely driven by ecological and evolutionary processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Discontinuities in Complex Systems: Toward Quantitative Measures of Resilience

Stow¹,

Allen²,

Garmestani

2007

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution, Ecology, and Multimodal Distributions of Body Size

Cited by 18 publications

References 17 publications

Using phylogenetic trees to test for character displacement: a model and an example from a desert mammal community

Using phylogenetic trees to test for character displacement: a model and an example from a desert mammal community

Habitat structure and body size distributions: cross‐ecosystem comparison for taxa with determinate and indeterminate growth

Evaluating Discontinuities in Complex Systems: Toward Quantitative Measures of Resilience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About