Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Exploring Predictions of Abundance from Body Mass Using Hierarchical Comparative Approaches

Brian J. McGill
The American Naturalist
Vol. 172, No. 1 (July 2008), pp. 88-101
DOI: 10.1086/588044
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/588044
Page Count: 14
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($19.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Exploring Predictions of Abundance from Body Mass Using Hierarchical Comparative Approaches
Preview not available

Abstract

Abstract: Understanding and predicting how and why abundance varies is one of the central questions in ecology. One of the few consistent predictors of variation in abundance between species has been body mass, but the nature of this relationship has been contentious. Here I explore the relationship between body mass and abundance in birds of North America, using hierarchical partitioning of variance and regressions at taxonomic levels above the species. These analyses show that much variation in abundance is found across space, while a moderate amount of variation is found at the species/genus and also at the family/order level. However, body size and trophic level primarily vary at the family/order level, suggesting that mechanisms based on body size and energy should primarily explain only this moderate‐sized, taxonomically conserved component of variation in abundance. Body size does explain more than 50% of the variation at this level (and almost 75% when trophic level is also included). This tighter relationship makes clear that energetic equivalence ( \documentclass{aastex} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{bm} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pifont} \usepackage{stmaryrd} \usepackage{textcomp} \usepackage{portland,xspace} \usepackage{amsmath,amsxtra} \usepackage[OT2,OT1]{fontenc} \newcommand\cyr{ \renewcommand\rmdefault{wncyr} \renewcommand\sfdefault{wncyss} \renewcommand\encodingdefault{OT2} \normalfont \selectfont} \DeclareTextFontCommand{\textcyr}{\cyr} \pagestyle{empty} \DeclareMathSizes{10}{9}{7}{6} \begin{document} \landscape $\mathrm{slope}\,=-3/ 4$ \end{document} ) sets an upper limit but does not describe the relationship between body mass and average abundance for birds of North America. Finally, I suggest that this hierarchical, multivariate approach should be used more often in macroecology.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1
    1
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2
    2
  • Thumbnail: Page 
3
    3
  • Thumbnail: Page 
4
    4
  • Thumbnail: Page 
5
    5
  • Thumbnail: Page 
6
    6
  • Thumbnail: Page 
7
    7
  • Thumbnail: Page 
8
    8
  • Thumbnail: Page 
9
    9
  • Thumbnail: Page 
10
    10
  • Thumbnail: Page 
11
    11
  • Thumbnail: Page 
12
    12
  • Thumbnail: Page 
13
    13
  • Thumbnail: Page 
14
    14