Advertisement

Evolutionary Trends in Body Size

  • Andy Purvis
  • C. David L. Orme
Part of the Research and Perspectives in Endocrine Interactions book series (RPEI)

Summary

An organism’s body size tells us a lot about how it makes a living, suggesting that body size is a key parameter in evolution. We outline three large-scale trends in body size evolution. Bergmann’s Rule is the tendency for warm-blooded species at high latitudes to be larger than their close relatives nearer the equator. The Island Rule is the trend for small species to become larger, and large species smaller, on islands. Cope’s Rule, which we discuss in much more detail, is the tendency for lineages to increase in size over evolutionary time. Trends are best studied by combining data on evolutionary relationships among species with fossil information on how characters have changed through time. After highlighting some methodological pitfalls that can trap unwary researchers, we summarise evidence that Cope’s Rule, while not being by any means universal, has operated in some very different animal groups — from microfauna (single-celled Foraminifera) to megafauna (dinosaurs) - and we discuss the possibility that natural selection and clade selection may pull body size in opposite directions. Despite size’s central importance, there is little evidence that body size differences among related groups affect their evolutionary success: careful comparisons rarely reveal any correlation between size and present-day diversity. We end by touching on human impacts, which are often more severe on larger species.

Keywords

Body Size Bank Vole Planktonic Foraminifera Sister Clade African Elephant 
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. Agapow P-M, Isaac NJB (2002) MacroCAIC: revealing correlates of species richness by comparative analysis. Div Dist 8: 41–43Google Scholar
  2. Alroy J (1998) Cope’s Rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science 280: 731–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alroy J (2000) Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology 26: 319–329Google Scholar
  4. Arnold AJ, Kelly DC, Parker WC (1995) Causality and Cope’s Rule: evidence from the planktonic Foraminifera. J Paleontol 69: 203–210Google Scholar
  5. Ashton KG (2001) Are ecological and evolutionary rules being dismissed prematurely? Div Dist 7: 289–295Google Scholar
  6. Avise JC, Johns GC (1999) Proposal for a standardized temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 7358–7363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Baillie JEM (2001) Persistence and vulnerability of island endemic birds. Ph.D. thesis, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Barraclough TG, Nee S, Harvey PH (1998a) Sister-group analysis in identifying correlates of diversification-Comment. Evol Ecol 12: 751–754Google Scholar
  9. Barraclough TG, Vogler AP, Harvey PH (1998b) Revealing the factors that promote speciation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 353: 241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (1997) Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or evolutionary predisposition? Proc R Soc Lond B 264: 401–408Google Scholar
  11. Bergmann C (1847) Ueber die verhältnisse der wärmeökonomie der thiere zu ihrer grösse. Gottinger studien 3: 595–708Google Scholar
  12. Brown JH, West GB, Eds. (2000) Scaling in biology. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown P, Sutikna T, Morwood MJ, Soejono RP, Jatmiko, Saptomo EW, Due RA (2004) A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431: 1043–1044Google Scholar
  14. Charnov EL (1991) Evolution of life history variation among female mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 1134–1137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cope ED (1896) The primary factors in organic evolution. Open Court Publishing Co., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham CW, Omland KW, Oakley TH (1998) Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends Ecol Evol 13: 361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Damuth J (1993) Cope’s rule, the island rule, and the scaling of mammalian population density. Nature 365: 748–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fordham BG (1986) Miocene-Pleistocene planktic Foraminifers from DSDP sites 208 and 77, and phylogeny and classification of Cenozoic species. Evolutionary Monographs 6: 1–200Google Scholar
  21. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Page M (2003) Bergmann’s Rule and body size in mammals. Am Nat 161: 821–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garland T, Midford PE, Ives AR (1999) An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral values. Am Zoolog 39: 374–388Google Scholar
  23. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Spicer JI (1998) Rapoport’s rule: time for an epitaph? Trends Ecol Evol 13: 70–74Google Scholar
  24. Gittleman JL, Purvis A (1998) Body size and species richness in primates and carnivores. Proc R Soc Lond B 265: 113–119Google Scholar
  25. Gould SJ (1997) Cope’s rule as psychological artefact. Nature 385: 199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hone DWE, Keesey TM, Pisani D, Purvis A (2005) Macroevolutionary trends in the Dinosauria: Cope’s Rule. J Evol Biol 18: 587–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isaac NJB, Agapow P-M, Harvey PH, Purvis A (2003) Phylogenetically nested comparisons for testing correlates of species-richness: a simulation study of continuous variables. Evolution 57: 18–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jablonski D (1997) Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope’s rule. Nature 385: 250–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katzourakis A, Purvis A, Azmeh S, Rotheray G, Gilbert F (2001) Macroevolution of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae): the effect of using higher-level taxa in studies of biodiversity, and correlates of species richness. J Evol Biol 14: 219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingsolver JG, Pfennig DW (2004) Individual-level selection as a cause of Cope’s Rule of phyletic size increase. Evolution 58: 1608–1612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kozlowski J, Weiner J (1997) Interspecific allometries are byproducts of body size optimization. Am Nat 149Google Scholar
  32. Law R (2001) Phenotypic and genetic changes due to selective exploitation. In: Reynolds JD, Mace GM, Redford KH, Robinson JG (eds) Conservation of exploited species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 323–342Google Scholar
  33. Lister AM (1996) Dwarfing in island elephants and deer: processes in relation to time of isolation. Symp Zool Soc Lond 69: 277–292Google Scholar
  34. Lomolino MV (1985) Body sizes of mammals on islands: the island rule re-examined. Am Nat 125: 310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lomolino MV, Channell R, Perault DR, Smith GA (2001) Downsizing Nature: Anthropogenic dwarfing of species and ecosystems. In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 223–243Google Scholar
  36. Meiri S, Dayan T (2003) On the validity of Bergmann’s rule. J Biogeog 30: 331–351Google Scholar
  37. Millar JS, Zammuto RM (1983) Life histories of mammals: an analysis of life tables. Ecology 64: 631–635Google Scholar
  38. Mitter C, Farrell B, Wiegmann B (1988) The phylogenetic study of adaptive zones: has phytophagy promoted insect diversification? Am Nat 132: 107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nee S, Mooers AØ, Harvey PH (1992) The tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 89: 8322–8326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Nee S, Barraclough TG, Harvey PH (1996) Temporal changes in biodiversity: detecting patterns and identifying causes. In: Gaston KJ (eds) Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 230–252Google Scholar
  41. Oakley TH, Cunningham CW (2000) Independent contrasts succeed where ancestor reconstruction fails in a known bacteriophage phylogeny. Evolution 54: 397–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Orme CDL, Isaac NJB, Purvis A (2002a) Are most species small? Not within species-level phylogenies. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 1279–1287Google Scholar
  43. Orme CDL, Quicke DLJ, Cook J, Purvis A (2002b) Body size does not predict species richness among the metazoan phyla. J Evol Biol 15: 235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Owens IPF, Bennett PM, Harvey PH (1999) Species richness among birds: body size, life history, sexual selection or ecology? Proc R Soc Lond B 266: 933–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pagel M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401: 877–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pearson PN (1993) A lineage phylogeny for the Paleogene planktonic foraminifera. Micropaleontology 39: 193–232Google Scholar
  47. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Pisani D, Yates A, Langer MC, Benton MJ (2002) A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 915–921Google Scholar
  49. Purvis A (1996) Using interspecific phylogenies to test macroevolutionary hypotheses. In: Harvey PH, Leigh Brown AJ, Maynard Smith J, Nee S (eds) New uses for new phylogenies. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, pp 153–168Google Scholar
  50. Purvis A (2001) Mammalian life histories and responses of populations to exploitation. In: Reynolds JD, Mace GM, Redford KH, Robinson JG (eds) Exploited species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–181Google Scholar
  51. Purvis A, Harvey PH (1996) Miniature mammals: life-history strategies and evolution. Symp Zool Soc Lond 69: 159–174Google Scholar
  52. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc Lond B 267: 1947–1952Google Scholar
  53. Purvis A, Orme CDL, Dolphin K (2003) Why are most species small-bodied? A phylogenetic view. In: Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ (eds) Macroecology: concepts and consequences. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 155–173Google Scholar
  54. Reynolds JD, Jennings S, Dulvy NK (2001) Life histories of fishes and population responses to exploitation. In: Reynolds JD, Mace GM, Redford KH, Robinson JG (eds) Conservation of exploited species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 147–168Google Scholar
  55. Schluter D, Price T, Mooers AØ, Ludwig D (1997) Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51: 1699–1711Google Scholar
  56. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, CambirdgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Swofford DL, Maddison WP (1987) Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsimony. Math Biosci 87: 199–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Valen L (1973) Body size and numbers of plants and animals. Evolution 27: 27–35Google Scholar
  59. Walker AC (1967) Patterns of extinctions among the subfossil Madagascan lemuroids. In: Martin PS, Wright HEJ (eds) Pleistocene extinctions. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 425–432Google Scholar
  60. Webster AJ, Purvis A (2002) Testing the accuracy of methods for reconstructing ancestral states of continuous characters. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams GC (1992) Natural selection: domains, levels, challenges. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andy Purvis
    • 1
  • C. David L. Orme
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of BiologyImperial College LondonAscotUK

Personalised recommendations