Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The evolution of body size in birds. I. Evidence for non-random diversification

  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The hypothesis that evolution of body size in birds was a random process coupled with an absolute lower boundary on body mass was tested using data on 6217 species of extant birds. The test was based on the fact that subclades within birds that have body masses much larger than this minimum should not have skewed log body mass distributions, while clades close to this boundary should. Bird species were classified into 23 orders suggested by Sibley and Monroe (1988). Thirteen orders that had average log body masses greater than the average for all birds had significantly skewed log body mass distributions. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that evolution of body size in birds is random, but is constrained only at the smallest body masses. Most orders of birds cannot be considered random samples from the parental distribution of all birds. When the pattern of body mass evolution in birds is reconstructed using an estimate of the phylogenetic relationships among orders, there are many more instances where a large taxon putatively originated from a smaller one than vice versa. The non-random nature of body mass evolution in birds is consistent with models that postulate that evolution is constrained by the ability of individuals to turn resources into offspring.

This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blackburn, T.M. and Gaston, K.J. (1994a) Animal body size distributions: Patterns, mechanisms and im-plications.Trends Ecol. Evol.9, 471–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, T.M. and Gaston, K.J. (1994b) The distribution of body sizes of the world's bird species.Oikos70, 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, J.T. (1988)The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D.R. and McLennan, D.A. (1991)Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.H. (1995)Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.H. and Maurer, B.A. (1986) Body size, ecological dominance and Cope's Rule.Nature324, 248–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.H., Marquet, P.A. and Taper, M.L. (1993) Evolution of body size: Consequences of an energetic definition of fitness.Am. Nat.142, 573–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dial, K.P. and Marzlu., J.M. (1988) Are the smallest organisms the most diverse?Ecology69, 1620–1624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.B. (1993)CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1993)An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedducia, A. (1996)The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J. (1988) Trends as changes in variance: A new slant on progress and directionality in evolution.J. Paleontol. 62, 319–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P.H. and Pagel, M.D. (1991)The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D. (1996) Body size and macroevolution. InEvolutionary Paleobiology (D. Jablonski, D.H. Erwin and J.H. Lipps, eds), pp. 256–289. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D. (1997) Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's rule.Nature385, 250–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelt, D.A. and Brown, J.H. (1997) Diversification of body sizes: Patterns and processes in the assembly of terrestrial mammal faunas. InBiodiversity Dynamics (M.L. McKinney, ed.). Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozłowski, J. and Weiner, J. (1997) Interspecific allometries are by-products of body size optimization.Am. Nat.149, 352–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losos, J.B. (1990) Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of West Indian Anolis lizards: An evolutionary analysis.Ecol. Monogr. 60, 369–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFadden, B.J. (1986) Fossil horses from `Eohippus' (Hyracotherium) to Equus: Scaling, Cope's Law, and the evolution of body size.Paleobiology12, 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison, W.P. (1991) Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral character states for contin-uous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree.Syst. Zool.40, 304–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison, W.P. and Maddison, D.R. (1992)MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, B.A. (1998) The evolution of body size in birds. II: The role of reproductive power.Evol. Ecol.12, 935–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, B.A. and Brown, J.H. (1988) Distribution of energy use and body mass among species of North American terrestrial birds.Ecology69, 1923–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, B.A., Brown, J.H. and Rusler, R.D. (1992) The micro and macro in body size evolution.Evolution46, 939–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M.L. (1990) Trends in body size evolution. InEvolutionary Trends (K.J. McNamara, ed.), pp. 75–118. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShea, D.W. (1994) Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends.Evolution48, 1747–1763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, D.B. and Dunham, A.E. (1993) Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: The use of phylogenetic comparative analyses.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.24, 587–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C.G. and Ahlquist, J.E. (1990)Phylogeny and Classification of Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C.G. and Monroe, B.L., Jr. (1990)Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C.G., Ahlquist, J.E. and Monroe, B.L. Jr. (1988) A classification of the living birds of the world based on DNA-DNA hybridization studies.Auk105, 409–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal-Causey, D. (1992) Review of distribution and taxonomy of birds.Auk109, 939–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1981)Biometry, 2nd edn. W.H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S.M. (1973) An explanation for Cope's Rule.Evolution27, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D.L. and Maddison, W.P. (1987) Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsi-mony.Math. Biosci.87, 199–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen, L. (1973) Body size and numbers of plants and animals.Evolution27, 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Brian a. Maurer

Authors
  1. Brian a. Maurer

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

About this article

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Advertisement


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp