Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 411–416 | Cite as

Size ratios among sympatric neotropical cats

  • Richard A. Kiltie
Original Papers

Summary

Data were gathered on body weight, body length, relative maximum bite force and relative maximum gape for six sympatric species of neotropical cats (Felidae) to see if constant size ratios occur between adjacent species or if the minimum ratio in a series is greater than expected by chance. Although clearly likely to be correlated, these four parameters were thought to have potential for some independent variation and independent influence on prey capture abilities. None of the four sets of ratios was statistically distinguishable from random when all six species were included in the analysis; however, the ratios for relative maximum gape among just the four largest species were significantly more even and the minimum ratio significantly greater than expected by chance among four species. This constancy occurs because of departures of jaw lengths from what would be expected by the average allometric relationship between this parameter and total body size. Competitive character displacement is a possible explanation for the constant ratios in maximum gape of the larger species, but it is not the only possibility.

Keywords

Size Ratio Large Species Sympatric Species Prey Capture Allometric Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton DE, David FN (1956) Some notes on ordered random intervals. J Royal Stat Soc, B, 18:79–94Google Scholar
  2. Case TJ (1982) Coevolution in resource-limited competition communities. Theor Pop Biol 21:69–91Google Scholar
  3. Emerson SB, Radinsky L (1980) Functional analysis of sabertooth cranial morphology. Paleobiology 6:295–312Google Scholar
  4. goodnight JH, Sall JP, Sarle WS (1982) GLM. In: Ray AA (ed). SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary NC, p 139–200Google Scholar
  5. Guggisberg CAW (1975) Wild cats of the world. Taplinger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Hairston NG, Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 94:421–425Google Scholar
  7. Hall ER (1981) The mammals of North America. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Honacki JH, Kinman KE, Koeppl JW (1982) Mammal species of the world. Allen Press, Lawrence, KansasGoogle Scholar
  9. Husson AM (1978) The mammals of Suriname. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  10. Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why are there so many kinds of animals? Am Nat 93:145–159Google Scholar
  11. Jaksié FM (1981) Abuse and misuse of the term “guild” in ecological studies. Oikos 37:397–400Google Scholar
  12. Kiltie RA (1982) Bite force as a basis for niche differentiation between rain forest peccaries (Tayassu tajacu and T. pecari). Biotropica 14:188–195Google Scholar
  13. Kiltie RA, Terborgh J (1983) Observations on the behavior of rain forest peccaries in Perú: Why do white-lipped peccaries form herds? Z Tierpsychol 62:241–255Google Scholar
  14. Kurtén B (1973a) Geographic variation in size in the puma (Felis concolor). Comment Biol Soc Sci Fennica 63:1–8Google Scholar
  15. Kurtén B (1973b) Pleistocene jaguars in North America. Comment Biol Soc Sci Fennica 62:1–23Google Scholar
  16. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292–307Google Scholar
  17. Leopold AS (1959) The wildlife of Mexico. Univ California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Leyhausen P (1963) Über südamerikanische Pardelkatzen. Z Tierpsychol 20:627–640Google Scholar
  19. Leyhausen P (1979) Cat behavior. Garland STPM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Løvtrup S (1977) Derek Roff and the evolution of body size: a rejoinder. Evol Theory 3:155–157Google Scholar
  21. Løvtrup S, Rahemtulla F, Hoglund N-G (1974) Fisher's axiom and the body size of animals. Zool Scripta 3:53–58Google Scholar
  22. May RM, MacArthur RH (1972) Niche overlap as a function of environmental variability. Proc US Nat Acad Sci 69:1109–1113Google Scholar
  23. McNab BK (1971) On the ecological significance of Bergmann's rule. Ecology 52:845–954Google Scholar
  24. Mendez E (1970) Los principales mamíferos silvestres de Panamá. Edicion Privada, Panama CityGoogle Scholar
  25. Perry R (1970) The world of the jaguar. David and Charles, Newton AbbottGoogle Scholar
  26. Radinsky LB (1981) Evolution of skull spape in carnivores 1. Representative modern carnivores. Biol J Linn Soc 15:369–388Google Scholar
  27. Ricker WE (1973) Linear regressions in fishery research. J Fish Res Bd Can 30:409–434Google Scholar
  28. Roff D (1977) Does body size evolve by quantum steps? Evol Theory 3:149–153Google Scholar
  29. Root RB (1967) The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecol Monogr 37:317–350Google Scholar
  30. Rosenzweig ML (1966) Community structure in sympatric Carnivora. J Mammal 47:602–612Google Scholar
  31. Roth VL (1979) Can quantum leaps in body size be recognized among mammalian species? Paleobiology 5:318–336Google Scholar
  32. Roth VL (1981) Constancy in the size ratios of sympatric species. Am Nat 118:394–404Google Scholar
  33. Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Roughgarden J (1983) Coevolution between competitors. In: Futuyma DJ, Slatkin MS (eds). Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland MA, p 383–403Google Scholar
  35. Schaller GB, Vasconcelos JMC (1978) Jaguar predation oncapybara. Z Saugetierk 43:297–307Google Scholar
  36. Schmidt-Nielson K (1979) Animal Physiology. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Schoener TW (1965) The evolution of bill size differences among sympatric congeneric species of birds. Evolution 19:189–213Google Scholar
  38. Schoener TW (1967) The ecological significance of dimorphism in size in the lizard Anolis conspersus. Science 155:474–477Google Scholar
  39. Schoener TW (1977) Competition and the niche. In: Gans G, Tinkle DW (eds). Biology of the Reptilia (Vol 7). Academic, London, p 35–136Google Scholar
  40. Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. Am Sci 70:586–595Google Scholar
  41. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285Google Scholar
  42. Schoener TW (in press) Size differences among sympatric, birdeating hawks: a worldwide survey. In: Strong D, Simberloff D, Abele L (eds). Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  43. Seidensticker J, Wiles WV, Messick JP (1973) Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildl Monogr 35:1–60Google Scholar
  44. Selander RK (1972) Sexual selection and dimorphism in birds. In: Campbell BG (ed). Sexual selection and the descent of man 1987–1971. Aldine, Chicago, p 180–230Google Scholar
  45. Simberloff D (1983) Sizes of coexisting species. In: Futuyma DJ, Slatkin MS (eds). Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland MA, p 404–430Google Scholar
  46. Simberloff D, Boecklen W (1981) Santa Rosalia reconsidered: size ratios and competition. Evolution 35:1206–1228Google Scholar
  47. Slatkin M (1980) Ecological character displacement. Ecology 61:163–177Google Scholar
  48. Slatkin M (1983) Models of coevolution: their use and abuse. In: Nitecki MH (ed). Coevolution. Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, p 339–370Google Scholar
  49. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  50. Turelli M (1977) Random environments and stochastic calculus. Theor Pop Biol 12:140–178Google Scholar
  51. Turelli M (1978) A reexamination of stability in randomly varying versus deterministic environments with comments on the stochastic theory of limiting similarity. Theor Pop Biol 13:244–267Google Scholar
  52. Turnbull WD (1970) Mammalian masticatory apparatus. Fieldiana: Geology 18:149–339Google Scholar
  53. Wilson DS (1975) The adequacy of body size as a niche difference. Am Nat 109:769–784Google Scholar
  54. Young SP, Goldman EA (1946) The puma. Amer Wildl Inst (reprinted by Dover, New York, 1964)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard A. Kiltie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations