Range Size: Disentangling Current Traits and Phylogenetic and Biogeographic Factors

Abstract

The range size of a species can be determined by its current traits and by phylogenetic and biogeographic factors. However, only rarely have these factors been studied in combination. We use data on the geographic range sizes of all 26 Sylvia warblers to explicitly test whether range size was determined by current species-specific traits (e.g., body size, dispersal ability), phylogenetic factors (e.g., age of the lineage), or environmental, biogeographic factors (e.g., latitudinal position of the range). The results demonstrated that current traits and phylogenetic and biogeographic factors were interrelated. While a number of factors were significant in simple regression analyses, only one factor determined range size in the multiple regression analyses--dispersal ability. Species with better dispersal ability had larger ranges than species with poorer dispersal ability. Apparent increases of range size with latitude or with the age of the species resulted from correlations with dispersal ability. While the most significant factor that influences the range size of a group of species might differ from one group to the next, these results demonstrate that studies that focus only on a single, for example, phylogenetic, factor might yield misleading results.

Phylogenetic trees and the future of mammalian biodiversity

“…The firing-line model predicts that small-ranged species will be most at risk because a single localized threat can impact their entire distribution. However, range size itself varies systematically among clades [although it shows weaker phylogenetic signal than, e.g., body size (48, 49)], suggesting that it is shaped, at least in part, by organismal traits such as dispersal ability (50) or niche breadth as well as by circumstances of geography. For example, smallranged species are more common at low latitudes and within climatically stable regions.…”

Habitat constraints and the generation of diversity in freshwater macroinvertebrates.

“…It is unsurprising, therefore, that the evidence for a strong relationship between dispersal ability and range size is equivocal (e.g. marine organisms, Lester et al, 2007;moths, Beck and Kitching, 2007), although there are many examples of a positive correlation (presence of wings in beetles, Juliano, 1983; wing size in damselfl ies, Rundle et al, 2007; fl ying ability in warblers, Böhning-Gaese et al, 2006). In plants, dispersal ability is often measured in relation to mode of pollination or seed size, and a positive relationship between these surrogate measures and size of the geographical range has been reported (e.g.…”

Can differences in autonomous selfing ability explain differences in range size among sister‐taxa pairs ofCollinsia(Plantaginaceae)? An extension of Baker's Law

“…Differences in the distribution of species have been attributed to a variety of factors including local and regional habitat conditions (e.g. geographic barriers, habitat availability and species interactions; reviewed in Brown et al, 1996;Gaston, 1996); historical factors such as species age (Willis, 1922;Paul et al, 2009); and species-level traits including dispersal and establishment (Böhning-Gaese et al, 2006), fecundity (Lockwood et al, 2005), niche breadth (McNaughton & Wolf, 1970;Brändle et al, 2003), local abundance (Brown, 1984;Lawton, 1993), environmental or physiological tolerance (Brown et al, 1996, Pither, 2002 and mating system (Henslow, 1879; Lowry & Lester, 2006). Of these possible influences on plant species distributions, mating system is of special interest because it has long been held as a primary determinant of a species' success in establishing a breeding population in a novel location (e.g.…”