, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 213–218 | Cite as

Geographic variation in body size: the effects of ambient temperature and precipitation



Latitudinal trends in body size have been explained as a response to temperature- or water-related factors, which are predictors of primary production. We used the first principal component calculated from three body parameters (weight, body length and the greatest length of the skull) of a sample of mammals from Israel and Sinai to determine those species that vary in size geographically, and whether such variation is related to annual rainfall, average minimum January temperature and average maximum August temperature. We used a conservative approach to discern the effects of precipitation and temperature by applying sequential regression. Variable priorities were assigned according to their bivariate correlation with body size, except for rainfall and its interactions that entered into the model last. Eleven species (Acomys cahirinus, Apodemus mystacinus, Canis lupus, Crocidura suaveolens, Gerbillus dasyurus, Hyaena hyaena, Lepus capensis, Meles meles, Meriones tristrami, Rousettus aegyptius and Vulpes vulpes) of the 17 species examined varied in size geographically. In five of them, rainfall was positively related to body size, while in one species it was negatively related to it. Contrary to the prediction of Bergmann’s rule, mean minimum January temperature was positively related to body size in five species and negatively related to body size in two species (C. suaveolens and G. dasyurus). As predicted by Bergmann’s rule, maximum June temperature was negatively related to body size in three species, and positively so in one (L. capensis). Primary production, particularly in desert and semi-desert areas, is determined mainly by precipitation. The above results indicate that, in our sample, primary production has an important effect on body size of several species of mammals. This is evident from the considerable proportion of the variability in body size explained by rain. However, low ambient temperatures may slow down and even inhibit photosynthesis. Hence, the observed positive relationships between average minimum January temperature and body size in four of the six species influenced by rain further support this conclusion.


Bergmann’s rule Climate Latitude Primary production Rainfall 



We wish to thank Arieh Landsman for his help in measuring the skulls, Tsila Shariv for her help at the Tel Aviv University Museum, Ronen Kadmon for providing climate data Naomi Paz for editing the article, Shai Meiri for discussion and comments on the manuscript, and Jörg Ganzhorn and two anonymous referees for very useful comments. This work was partly financed by the Israel Cohen Chair for Environmental Zoology to Y.-Y.T.


  1. Ashton KG (2002a) Patterns of within species body size variation of birds: strong evidence for Bergmann’s rule. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:505–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton KG (2002b) Do amphibians follow Bergmann’s rule? Can J Zool 80:708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashton KG (2004) Sensitivity of intraspecific latitudinal clines for tetrapods to sampling, latitude and body size. Integ Comp Biol 44:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton KG, Tracy MC, de Queiroz A (2000) Is Bergmann’s rule valid for mammals? Am Nat 156:390–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Loder N (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann’s rule. Divers Dist 5:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnett CD (1983) Geographic and climate correlates on morphological variation in Eptesicus fuscus. J Mammal 64:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calder WA (1984) Size, function and life history. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Chetboun R, Tchernov E (1983) Temporal and spatial morphological variation in Meriones tristrami (Rodentia: Gerbillidae) from Israel. J Biogeogr 30:331–351Google Scholar
  9. Corbet GB (1978) The mammals of the Palearctic region: a taxonomic review. British Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayan T, Tchernov E, Yom-Tov Y, Simberloff D (1989) Ecological character displacement in Saharo-Arabian Vulpes: outfoxing Bergmann’s rule. Oikos 55:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freckelton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2003) Bergmann rule and body size in mammals. Am Nat 161:821–825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Geist V (1987) Bergmann’s rule is invalid. Can J Zool 65:1035–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henry CJK, Ulijaszek SJ (eds) (1996) Long-term consequences of early environment. Cambridge University press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaffe S (1988) Climate of Israel. In: Yom-Tov Y, Tchernov E (eds) The zoogeography of Israel. Junk, Dordrecht, pp 79–92Google Scholar
  16. James FC (1970) Geographic size variation in birds and its relationship with climate. Ecology 51:365–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolb HH (1978) Variation in size of foxes in Scotland. Biol J Linn Soc 10:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindstrom J (1999) Early development and fitness in birds and mammals. Trend Ecol Evol 14:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. McNab BK (1971) On the ecological significance of Bergmann’s rule. Ecology 52:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meiri S, Dayan T (2003) On the validity of Bergmann’s rule. J Biogeogr 30:331–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendelssohn H (1982) Wolves in Israel. In: Harrington FH, Paquet PC (eds) Wolves of the world. Noyes, New Jersey, pp 173–195Google Scholar
  23. Mendelssohn H, Yom-Tov Y (1999) Mammalia of Israel. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  24. Nevo E (1989) Natural selection of body size differentiation in Spiny mice, Acomys. Z Saugertierkund 54:81–99Google Scholar
  25. Nevo E, Beiles A, Heth G, Simson S (1986) Adaptive differentiation of body size in speciating mole rats. Oecologia 69:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenzweig ML (1968) The strategy of body size in mammalian carnivores. Am Midl Nat 80:299–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Scholander PF (1955) Evolution of climatic adaptation in homoeotherms. Evolution 9:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wigginton JD, Dobson FS (1999) Environmental influences on geographic variation in body size of western bobcats. Can J Zool 77:802–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson FD (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Yom-Tov Y (1967) On the taxonomic status of the hares (Genus Lepus) in Israel. Mammalia 31:246–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yom-Tov Y (1988) The zoogeography of birds and mammals in Israel. In: Yom-Tov Y, Tchernov E (eds) The zoogeography of Israel. Junk, Dordrecht, pp 389–410Google Scholar
  33. Yom-Tov Y, Nix H (1986) Climatological correlates for body size of five species of Australian mammals. Biol J Linn Soc 29:245-262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yom-Tov Y, Tchernov E (1988) The zoogeography of Israel. Junk, DordrechtGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations