Advertisement

Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 129, Issue 4, pp 247–253 | Cite as

The balance between predictions and evidence and the search for universal macroecological patterns: taking Bergmann’s rule back to its endothermic origin

  • Daniel Pincheira-DonosoEmail author
Review

Abstract

Geographical variation in environmental temperatures is expected to impose clinal phenotypic selection that results in the expression of large-scale gradients of body mass variation within animal clades. Body size is predicted to increase with increasing latitude and elevation, and hence, with decreasing temperature, a pattern broadly known as Bergmann’s rule. However, empirical observations are highly conflicting. Whilst most studies support this prediction in endotherms (birds and mammals), analyses conducted on ectotherms often fail to report this pattern. Does it reduce the validity of this macroecological rule? Since the original formulation of Bergmann’s rule only involved endothermic organisms, I argue that the controversy is not a consequence of its predictive power, but a result of the later inclusion of ectotherms as part of the prediction. Here, I propose that the common conception of Bergmann’s rule maintained for half a century is changed back to its original definition restricted to endotherms. This temperature–size relationship might therefore consolidate as a well-established macroecological rule if its original formulation is respected. Finally, I develop these claims on my initial suggestion that Bergmann’s rule should be recognized as the evolutionary outcome of a general process with no phylogenetic scale distinction of species or populations, being equally applicable amongst and within species.

Keywords

Bergmann’s rule James’s rule Temperature–size rule Endotherms Ectotherms Body size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Tom Tregenza, John Hunt and Dave Hodgson for constant support and encouragement. Jan Stipala and Gavin Thomas provided valuable and insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Wiebke Schuett kindly helped to translate German texts into English. Shai Meiri and an anonymous referee offered insightful comments on the original manuscript. DP-D is fully supported by the Leverhulme Trust through Postdoctoral Research funding from a Leverhulme Research Grant, and has received partial support from Oxford University Press.

References

  1. Adams DC, Church JO (2008) Amphibians do not follow Bergmann’s rule. Evolution 62:413–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Angilletta MJ (2009) Thermal adaptation. A theoretical and empirical synthesis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Angilletta MJ, Dunham AE (2003) The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: simple evolutionary explanations may not be general. Am Nat 162:332–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Angilletta MJ, Steury TD, Sears MW (2004) Temperature, growth rate, and body size in ectotherms: fitting pieces of a life-history puzzle. Integr Comp Biol 44:498–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashton KG (2002a) Do amphibians follow Bergmann’s rule? Can J Zool 80:708–716Google Scholar
  6. Ashton KG (2002b) Patterns of within species body size variation of birds: strong evidence for Bergmann’s rule. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:505–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashton KG, Feldman CR (2003) Bergmann’s rule in nonavian reptiles: turtles follow it, lizards and snakes reverse it. Evolution 57:1151–1163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashton KG, Tracy MC, de Queiroz A (2000) Is Bergmann’s rule valid for mammals? Am Nat 156:390–415Google Scholar
  9. Atkinson D (1994) Temperature and organism size: a biological law for ectotherms. Adv Ecol Res 25:1–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barlow ND (1994) Size distributions of butterfly species and the effect of latitude on species sizes. Oikos 71:326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belk MC, Houston DD (2002) Bergmann’s rule in ectotherms: a test using freshwater fishes. Am Nat 160:803–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bergmann C (1847) Ueber die Verhaltnisse der warmeokonomie der thiere zu ihrer grosse. Gottinger Studien 3:595–708Google Scholar
  13. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ (1996) Spatial patterns in the body sizes of bird species in the New World. Oikos 77:436–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ (2003) Macroecology. Concepts and consequences. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Blackburn TM, Hawkins BA (2004) Bergmann’s rule and the mammal fauna of northern North America. Ecography 27:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blackburn TM, Ruggiero A (2001) Latitude, elevation and body mass variation in Andean passerine birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 10:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Loder N (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann’s rule. Divers Distrib 5:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blanckenhorn WU, Demont M (2004) Bergmann and converse Bergmann latitudinal clines in arthropods: two ends of a continuum? Integr Comp Biol 44:413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brennan JM, Fairbairn DJ (1995) Clinal variation in morphology among eastern populations of the waterstrider, Aquarius remigis Say (Hemiptera, Gerridae). Biol J Linn Soc 54:151–171Google Scholar
  20. Brown JH, Sibly RM (2006) Life-history evolution under a production constraint. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:17595–17599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  22. Cruz FB, Fitzgerald LA, Espinoza RE, Schulte JA (2005) The importance of phylogenetic scale in tests of Bergmann’s and Rapoport’s rules: lessons from a clade of South American lizards. J Evol Biol 18:1559–1574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cushman JH, Lawton JH, Manly BFJ (1993) Latitudinal patterns in Europe ant assemblages: variation in species richness and body size. Oecologia 95:30–37Google Scholar
  24. Cvetkovic D, Tomasevic N, Ficetola GF, Crnobrnja-Isailovic J, Miaud C (2009) Bergmann’s rule in amphibians: combining demographic and ecological parameters to explain body size variation among populations in the common toad Bufo bufo. J Zool Syst Evol Res 47:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dayan T, Simberloff D, Tchernov E, Yom-Tov Y (1991) Calibrating the paleothermometer: climate, communities, and the evolution of size. Paleobiology 17:189–199Google Scholar
  26. de Queiroz A, Ashton KG (2004) The phylogeny of a species-level tendency: species heritability and possible deep origins of Bergmann’s rule in tetrapods. Evolution 58:1674–1684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Diniz-Filho JAF, Fowler HG (1998) Honey ants (genus Myrmecocystus) macroecology: effect of spatial patterns on the relationship between worker body size and geographic range size. Environ Entomol 27:1094–1101Google Scholar
  28. Feder ME, Papenfuss TJ, Wake DB (1982) Body size and elevation in neotropical salamanders. Copeia 1982:186–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2003) Bergmann’s rule and body size in mammals. Am Nat 161:821–825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (1996) Global scale macroecology: interactions between population size, geographic range size and body size in the Anseriformes. J Anim Ecol 65:701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Guppy CS (1986) Geographic variation in wing melanism of the butterfly Parnassius phoebus F. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Can J Zool 64:956–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hawkins BA (1995) Latitudinal body-size gradients for the bees of the eastern United States. Ecol Entomol 20:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hawkins BA, Lawton JH (1995) Latitudinal gradients in butterfly body sizes: is there a general pattern? Oecologia 102:31–36Google Scholar
  36. Hovanitz W (1942) Genetic and ecologic analyses of wild populations in Lepidoptera. I. Pupal size and weight variation in some California populations of Melitaea chalcedona. Ecology 23:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huey RB, Berrigan D (2001) Temperature, demography, and ectotherm fitness. Am Nat 158:204–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Isaac NJB, Mallet J, Mace GM (2004) Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:464–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. James FC (1970) Geographic size variations in birds and its relationship with climate. Ecology 51:365–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaspari M, Vargo EL (1995) Colony size as a buffer against seasonality: Bergmann’s rule in social insects. Am Nat 145:610–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindsey CC (1966) Body sizes of poikilotherm vertebrates at different latitudes. Evolution 20:456–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Masaki S (1967) Geographic variation and climatic adaptation in a field cricket (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Evolution 21:725–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Mayr E (1956) Geographical character gradients and climatic adaptation. Evolution 10:105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. McNab BK (1971) On the ecological significance of Bergmann’s rule. Ecology 52:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Medina AI, Martí DA, Bidau CJ (2007) Subterranean rodents of the genus Ctenomys (Caviomorpha, Ctenomyidae) follow the converse to Bergmann’s rule. J Biogeogr 34:1439–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meiri S, Dayan T (2003) On the validity of Bergmann’s rule. J Biogeogr 30:331–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meiri S, Mace GM (2007) New taxonomy and the origin of species. PLoS Biol 5:1385–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meiri S, Thomas GH (2007) The geography of body size—challenges of the interspecific approach. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:689–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meiri S, Dayan T, Simberloff D (2004) Carnivores, biases and Bergmann’s rule. Biol J Linn Soc 81:579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meiri S, Yom-Tov Y, Geffen E (2007) What determines conformity to Bergmann’s rule? Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:788-794Google Scholar
  53. Miller WE (1991a) Body size in North American Lepidoptera as related to geography. J Lepid Soc 45:158–168Google Scholar
  54. Miller WE (1991b) Positive relation between body size and altitude of capture site in Tortricid moths (Tortricidae). J Lepid Soc 45:66–67Google Scholar
  55. Millien V, Lyons SK, Olson L, Smith FA, Wilson AB, Yom-Tov Y (2006) Ecotypic variation in the context of global climate change: revisiting the rules. Ecol Lett 9:853–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Olalla-Tarraga MA, Rodríguez MA (2007) Energy and interspecific body size patterns of amphibian faunas in Europe and North America: anurans follow Bergmann’s rule, urodeles its converse. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:606–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olalla-Tarraga MA, Rodríguez MA, Hawkins BA (2006) Broad-scale patterns of body size in squamate reptiles of Europe and North America. J Biogeogr 33:781–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Olson VA, Davies RG, Orme CDL, Thomas GH, Meiri S, Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Owens IPF, Bennett PM (2009) Global biogeography and ecology of body size in birds. Ecol Lett 12:249–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Park O (1949) Application of the converse Bergmann principle to the carabid beetle, Dicaelus purpuratus. Physiol Zool 22:359–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Partridge L, Coyne JA (1997) Bergmann’s rule in ectotherms: is it adaptive? Evolution 51:632–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pigliucci M (2001) Phenotypic plasticity. Beyond nature and nurture. Johns Hopkins University Press, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  62. Pincheira-Donoso D, Tregenza T, Hodgson DJ (2007) Body size evolution in South American Liolaemus lizards of the boulengeri clade: a contrasting reassessment. J Evol Biol 20:2067–2071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Pincheira-Donoso D, Hodgson DJ, Tregenza T (2008) The evolution of body size under environmental gradients in ectotherms: why should Bergmann’s rule apply to lizards? BMC Evol Biol 8:68Google Scholar
  64. Porter EE, Hawkins BA (2001) Latitudinal gradients in colony size for social insects: termites and ants show different patterns. Am Nat 157:97–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Poulin R (1995) Evolutionary influences on body size in free-living and parasitic isopods. Biol J Linn Soc 54:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Poulin R, Hamilton WJ (1995) Ecological determinants of body size and clutch size in amphipods: a comparative approach. Funct Ecol 9:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ray C (1960) The application of Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules to the poikilotherms. J Morphol 106:85–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Rensch B (1938) Some problems of geographical variation and species-formation. Proc Linn Soc Lond 150:275–285Google Scholar
  69. Rodríguez MA, López-Sañudo IL, Hawkins BA (2006) The geographic distribution of mammal body size in Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rodríguez MA, Olalla-Tárraga MA, Hawkins BA (2008) Bergmann’s rule and the geography of mammal body size in the Western Hemisphere. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rothschild W, Jordan K (1906) A revision of the American Papilios. Novit Zool 13:411–752Google Scholar
  72. Schuster O (1950) Die klimaparallele Ausbildung der Körperproportionen bei Poikilothermen. Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch Ges 482:1–89Google Scholar
  73. Sears MW, Angilletta MJ (2004) Body size clines in Sceloporus lizards: proximate mechanisms and demographic constraints. Integr Comp Biol 44:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith TB, Wayne RK, Girman DJ, Bruford MW (1997) A role for ecotones in generating rainforest biodiversity. Science 276:1855–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thomas GH (2009) Bergmann’s idiosyncratic rule: a role for fecundity selection? Mol Ecol 18:1027–1029Google Scholar
  76. Tinkle DW (1961) Geographic variation in reproduction, size, sex ratio and maturity of Sternothaerus odoratus. Ecology 42:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tomilin AG (1946) Thermoregulation and the geographical races of cetaceans. C R Doklady l’Acad Sci URSS 54:465–468Google Scholar
  78. Van Voorhies WA (1996) Bergmann size clines: a simple explanation for their occurrence in ectotherms. Evolution 50:1259–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van Voorhies WA (1997) On the adaptive nature of Bergmann size cline: a reply to Mousseau, Partridge and Coyne. Evolution 51:635–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walters RJ, Hassall M (2006) The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: may a general explanation exist after all? Am Nat 167:510–523Google Scholar
  81. Watt C, Mitchell S, Salewski V (2010) Bergmann’s rule; a concept cluster? Oikos 119:89–100Google Scholar
  82. Wilson AB (2009) Fecundity selection predicts Bergmann’s rule in syngnathid fishes. Mol Ecol 18:1263–1272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilson EO, Brown WL (1953) The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Syst Zool 2:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zeveloff SI, Boyce MS (1988) Body size patterns in North American mammal faunas. In: Boyce MS (ed) Evolution of life histories of mammals. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 123–146Google Scholar
  85. Zink RM, Remsen JV (1986) Evolutionary processes and patterns of geographic variation in birds. In: Johnston RF (ed) Current ornithology, vol 4. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Evolutionary & Behavioural Ecology Research Group, School of BiosciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations