You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Range Size-Body Size Relationships: Evidence of Scale Dependence
Kevin J. Gaston and Tim M. Blackburn
Vol. 75, No. 3 (Apr., 1996), pp. 479-485
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3545889
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Body size, Species, Population ecology, Animals, Mammals, Ecological genetics, Evolution, Plants, Biological taxonomies, Host plants
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The interspecific geographic range size-body size relationship for animals is widely described simply as a positive interaction. However, examples of this relationship have been reported in which geographic range size increases with increasing body size, decreases with increasing body size, or follows no simple pattern. Here we suggest that much of this variation can be explained in terms of the extent of the geographic coverage of different studies. In the main, where significant interactions are found, 'comprehensive' analyses (performed over areas which embrace a very large proportion of the geographic ranges of the species concerned) report positive range size-body size relationships, whilst 'partial' analyses (performed over areas which embrace the entire geographic ranges of none or only a small proportion of the species concerned) report positive or negative relationships with about equal frequency. Some of the consequences of this observation are discussed.
Oikos © 1996 Nordic Society Oikos