Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Who lives where? What constraints geographic distributions? What is the relationship between distribution and abundance? Considering the Q do sp that have large geographic ranges are more or less abundant than sp that have small geographic ranges? Large geog ranges=more abundant? Small geog ranges=less abundant?
Spatial scales and correlations 5o latitude and longitude blocks Fig 9.2 shows that as the spatial scale increases the correlation gets
85% species in a group have small geographic ranges (1 million square km)
55% species in a group have small geographic ranges (1 million square km)
10%, 5%, 3%, 2% and 1% have large geographic ranges (up to 10 million square km)
5%, 3%, 2% and 1% have large geographic ranges up (9 million square km)
Rapoports Rule (Stevens, 1989) Within the Mammals, geographic range size decreases from polar to equator range is smaller in tropics Fig. 8.3 for trees, fishes, some birds, reptiles (Gaston et al., 1998)
Canadian (60N) mammal species inhabit ranges that are an average 25x larger than in Mexican (23N) mammals (Pagel et al., 1998)
Why do some follow Rapoports rule while others dont? what are the ecological mechanisms of such a pattern?
Tropics zone
Temperat e zone
Pola r zone
Ecological Mechanism of Distribution Pattern 2. Glaciation hypothesis as glaciers melted (North Hemisphere) only species with high dispersal capacity were able to repopulate and these species have wide geographic ranges. This hypothesis is a contributing factor but not major cause 3. Lack of competition in polar communities no support for this mechanism as yet it is untested!
Contour Map
A species geographic distribution is a contour map Density falls off at edges (Fig. 8.5) Gradual decline from centre of density to edges. There may also be unexpected boundaries due to physiological and biological factors
more widespread species (430 plots occupied) generally tend to be more abundant (80%)
Hanskis (1982) Rule 3 Reasons why Distribution & Abundance are Correlated I. Sampling model observed relationship is an artifact does not require biological explanation the above applies as in Fig 8.6 but positive correlation has been shown among birds, butterflies and mammals
Hanskis (1982) Rule 3 Reasons why Distribution & Abundance are Correlated II. Ecological Specialization Model Browns Model Species that can exploit a wide range of resources become widespread and common
Hanskis (1982) Rule 3 Reasons why Distribution & Abundance are Correlated III. Local Population Model Species differ in their capacity to disperse, some occupy more patches Based on dispersal ability in local patches of populations Species that disperse more, occupy more patches and become more common, when compared to less migratory species.
As their geographic range decreased (proportion of routes occupied) their abundance decreased
As their geographic range decreased (proportion of routes occupied) their abundance increased