Slaying dragons: limited evidence for unusual body size evolution on islands

Aim Island taxa often attain forms outside the range achieved by mainland relatives. Body size evolution of vertebrates on islands has therefore received much attention, with two seemingly conflicting patterns thought to prevail: (1) islands harbour animals of extreme size, and (2) islands promote evolution towards medium body size (‘the island rule’). We test both hypotheses using body size distributions of mammal, lizard and bird species. Location World‐wide. Methods We assembled body size and insularity datasets for the world’s lizards, birds and mammals. We compared the frequencies with which the largest or smallest member of a group is insular with the frequencies expected if insularity is randomly assigned within groups. We tested whether size extremes on islands considered across mammalian phylogeny depart from a null expectation under a Brownian motion model. We tested the island rule by comparing insular and mainland members of (1) a taxonomic level and (2) mammalian sister species, to determine if large insular animals tend to evolve smaller body sizes while small ones evolve larger sizes. Results The smallest species in a taxon (order, family or genus) are insular no more often than would be expected by chance in all groups. The largest species within lizard families and bird genera (but no other taxonomic levels) are insular more often than expected. The incidence of extreme sizes in insular mammals never departs from the null, except among extant genera, where gigantism is marginally less common than expected under a Brownian motion null. Mammals follow the island rule at the genus level and when comparing sister species and clades. This appears to be driven mainly by insular dwarfing in large‐bodied lineages. A similar pattern in birds is apparent for species within orders. However, lizards follow the converse pattern. Main conclusions The popular misconception that islands have more than their fair share of size extremes may stem from a greater tendency to notice gigantism and dwarfism when they occur on islands. There is compelling evidence for insular dwarfing in large mammals, but not in other taxa, and little evidence for the second component of the island rule – gigantism in small‐bodied taxa.     

The generality of the island rule reexamined

Aim  M.V. Lomolino and colleagues have recently reviewed the island rule in mammals and other vertebrates, claiming it is a general pattern. They have portrayed our recent analysis as weakly supporting the island rule, seeing weakness in our use of what they considered to be inadequate size indices (skulls and teeth, rather than mass or body length) and in our use of large islands. They argue that size evolution on islands points to a bauplan-specific fundamental size. We aim to test the generality of the rule and the adequacy of some of the data used to support it.
Location  Insular environments world-wide.
Methods  We collate and analyse data on skull sizes of carnivores and body masses of mammals in general to see whether there is a graded trend from dwarfism in large species to gigantism in smaller ones.
Results  The island rule is not supported with either the carnivore or the mammal data sets. Island area does not influence size change.
Main conclusions  Our results suggest that data recently advanced in support of the island rule are inadequate and that the island rule is not a general pattern for all mammals.     

The evolution of island gigantism and body size variation in tortoises and turtles

Extant chelonians (turtles and tortoises) span almost four orders of magnitude of body size, including the startling examples of gigantism seen in the tortoises of the Galapagos and Seychelles islands. However, the evolutionary determinants of size diversity in chelonians are poorly understood. We present a comparative analysis of body size evolution in turtles and tortoises within a phylogenetic framework. Our results reveal a pronounced relationship between habitat and optimal body size in chelonians. We found strong evidence for separate, larger optimal body sizes for sea turtles and island tortoises, the latter showing support for the rule of island gigantism in non-mammalian amniotes. Optimal sizes for freshwater and mainland terrestrial turtles are similar and smaller, although the range of body size variation in these forms is qualitatively greater. The greater number of potential niches in freshwater and terrestrial environments may mean that body size relationships are more complicated in these habitats.     

Relative effects of climate change, isolation and competition on body-size evolution in the Japanese field mouse, Apodemus argenteus

Aim This paper examines body size variation in both recent and Quaternary populations of the Japanese field mouse Apodemus argenteus in order to assess the relative effects on body size of climate change, isolation and competitive interactions with its congeneric A. speciosus. Both temporal (since the Last Glacial Maximum, LGM) and spatial (over the Japanese archipelago) scales are considered. Location The small field mouse is widespread in Japan, and the specimens examined were collected from 10 localities on islands of widely differing area (from 4 km² to 230,510 km²) and at latitudes ranging from 30.3° N to 45.1° N. Methods The effects of geographical factors such as latitude and island area on the size variation of A. argenteus were investigated, using the lower incisor size. In addition, the size of some specimens from two Quaternary localities was compared with the size of the extant specimens. Evolutionary rates of size change since the LGM were calculated in darwins. Hutchinson size ratios were used to examine the pattern of variation of the size segregation between the two Japanese field mice, A. argenteus and A. speciosus, in relation to time and space. Results There was a negative relationship between size and latitude among living A. argenteus populations. In addition, there was no effect of island area on body size, especially at higher latitudes. At lower latitudes, A. argenteus were larger on smaller islands, although this trend was not statistically significant. Quaternary specimens of A. argenteus were smaller in size than their living representatives. The interspecific size ratio between the two Japanese Apodemus was larger on smaller islands and at higher latitudes, and there has been a decrease in the size ratio between the two Apodemus since the LGM. Lastly, in accordance with the theory of character displacement, the small A. argenteus was larger in allopatry than in sympatry, whereas the large A. speciosus was smaller in allopatry than in sympatry. Main conclusions These results indicate that A. argenteus does not conform to Bergmann's rule or to the island rule. The variation in size for the small Japanese field mouse at both spatial and temporal scales may be related to climate change, with an additional effect of competition with the large field mouse, especially on smaller islands. The size convergence between the two Japanese Apodemus observed over the last 21,000 years may be explained by the diminution of available food resources due to the reduction of land mass areas following the LGM. It may also be the result of an evolution towards an optimal body size; a hypothesis previously proposed to explain the evolution of body size in island mammals. Lastly, the evolutionary rates of body size calculated for A. argenteus since the LGM are typical of rates calculated for other Quaternary mainland mammals, thus suggesting that the evolution in this species was not particularly rapid, as is often thought for island mammals.     

Size evolution in island lizards

Aim  The island rule, small animal gigantism and large animal dwarfism on islands, is a topic of much recent debate. While size evolution of insular lizards has been widely studied, whether or not they follow the island rule has never been investigated. I examined whether lizards show patterns consistent with the island rule.
Location  Islands worldwide.
Methods  I used literature data on the sizes of island–mainland population pairs in 59 species of lizards, spanning the entire size range of the group, and tested whether small insular lizards are larger than their mainland conspecifics and large insular lizards are smaller. I examined the influence of island area, island isolation, and dietary preferences on lizard size evolution.
Results  Using mean snout–vent length as an index of body size, I found that small lizards on islands become smaller than their mainland conspecifics, while large ones become larger still, opposite to predictions of the island rule. This was especially strong in carnivorous lizards; omnivorous and herbivorous species showed a pattern consistent with the island rule but this result was not statistically significant. No trends consistent with the island rule were found when maximum snout–vent length was used. Island area had, at best, a weak effect on body size. Using maximum snout–vent length as an index of body size resulted in most lizard populations appearing to be dwarfed on islands, but no such pattern was revealed when mean snout–vent length was used as a size index.
Main conclusions  I suggest that lizard body size is mostly influenced by resource availability, with large size allowing some lizard populations to exploit resources that are unavailable on the mainland. Lizards do not follow the island rule. Maximum snout–vent length may be biased by sampling effort, which should be taken into account when one uses this size index.     

The island rule: made to be broken?

The island rule is a hypothesis whereby small mammals evolve larger size on islands while large insular mammals dwarf. The rule is believed to emanate from small mammals growing larger to control more resources and enhance metabolic efficiency, while large mammals evolve smaller size to reduce resource requirements and increase reproductive output. We show that there is no evidence for the existence of the island rule when phylogenetic comparative methods are applied to a large, high-quality dataset. Rather, there are just a few clade-specific patterns: carnivores; heteromyid rodents; and artiodactyls typically evolve smaller size on islands whereas murid rodents usually grow larger. The island rule is probably an artefact of comparing distantly related groups showing clade-specific responses to insularity. Instead of a rule, size evolution on islands is likely to be governed by the biotic and abiotic characteristics of different islands, the biology of the species in question and contingency.     

Of mice and mammoths: evaluations of causal explanations for body size evolution in insular mammals

Aim We investigated the hypothesis that the insular body size of mammals results from selective forces whose influence varies with characteristics of the focal islands and the focal species, and with interactions among species (ecological displacement and release). Location Islands world‐wide. Methods We assembled data on the geographic characteristics (area, isolation, maximum elevation, latitude) and climate (annual averages and seasonality of temperature and precipitation) of islands, and on the ecological and morphological characteristics of focal species (number of mammalian competitors and predators, diet, body size of mainland reference populations) that were most relevant to our hypothesis (385 insular populations from 98 species of extant, non‐volant mammals across 248 islands). We used regression tree analyses to examine the hypothesized contextual importance of these factors in explaining variation in the insular body size of mammals. Results The results of regression tree analyses were consistent with predictions based on hypotheses of ecological release (more pronounced changes in body size on islands lacking mammalian competitors or predators), immigrant selection (more pronounced gigantism in small species inhabiting more isolated islands), thermoregulation and endurance during periods of climatic or environmental stress (more pronounced gigantism of small mammals on islands of higher latitudes or on those with colder and more seasonal climates), and resource subsidies (larger body size for mammals that utilize aquatic prey). The results, however, were not consistent with a prediction based on resource limitation and island area; that is, the insular body size of large mammals was not positively correlated with island area. Main conclusions These results support the hypothesis that the body size evolution of insular mammals is influenced by a combination of selective forces whose relative importance and nature of influence are contextual. While there may exist a theoretical optimal body size for mammals in general, the optimum for a particular insular population varies in a predictable manner with characteristics of the islands and the species, and with interactions among species. This study did, however, produce some unanticipated results that merit further study – patterns associated with Bergmann’s rule are amplified on islands, and the body size of small mammals appears to peak at intermediate and not maximum values of latitude and island isolation.     

Body size of insular carnivores: little support for the island rule

Large mammals are thought to evolve to be smaller on islands, whereas small mammals grow larger. A negative correlation between relative size of island individuals and body mass is termed the "island rule." Several mechanisms--mainly competitive release, resource limitation, dispersal ability, and lighter predation pressure on islands, as well as a general physiological advantage of modal size--have been advanced to explain this pattern. We measured skulls and teeth of terrestrial members of the order Carnivora in order to analyze patterns of body size evolution between insular populations and their near mainland conspecifics. No correlations were found between the size ratios of insular/mainland carnivore species and body mass. Only little support for the island rule is found when individual populations rather than species are considered. Our data are at odds with those advanced in support of theories of optimal body size. Carnivore size is subjected to a host of selective pressures that do not vary uniformly from place to place. Mass alone cannot account for the patterns in body size of insular carnivores.     

Body size evolution in insular vertebrates: generality of the island rule

Aim My goals here are to (1) assess the generality of the island rule – the graded trend from gigantism in small species to dwarfism in larger species – for mammals and other terrestrial vertebrates on islands and island‐like ecosystems; (2) explore some related patterns of body size variation in insular vertebrates, in particular variation in body size as a function of island area and isolation; (3) offer causal explanations for these patterns; and (4) identify promising areas for future studies on body size evolution in insular vertebrates. Location Oceanic and near‐shore archipelagos, and island‐like ecosystems world‐wide. Methods Body size measurements of insular vertebrates (non‐volant mammals, bats, birds, snakes and turtles) were obtained from the literature, and then regression analyses were conducted to test whether body size of insular populations varies as a function of body size of the species on the mainland (the island rule) and with characteristics of the islands (i.e. island isolation and area). Results The island rule appears to be a general phenomenon both with mammalian orders (and to some degree within families and particular subfamilies) as well as across the species groups studied, including non‐volant mammals, bats, passerine birds, snakes and turtles. In addition, body size of numerous species in these classes of vertebrates varies significantly with island isolation and island area. Main conclusions The patterns observed here – the island rule and the tendency for body size among populations of particular species to vary with characteristics of the islands – are actually distinct and scale‐dependent phenomena. Patterns within archipelagos reflect the influence of island isolation and area on selective pressures (immigration filters, resource limitation, and intra‐ and interspecific interactions) within particular species. These patterns contribute to variation about the general trend referred to as the island rule, not the signal for that more general, large‐scale pattern. The island rule itself is an emergent pattern resulting from a combination of selective forces whose importance and influence on insular populations vary in a predictable manner along a gradient from relatively small to large species. As a result, body size of insular species tends to converge on a size that is optimal, or fundamental, for a particular bau plan and ecological strategy.     

The island rule in large mammals: paleontology meets ecology

The island rule is the phenomenon of the miniaturization of large animals and the gigantism of small animals on islands, with mammals providing the classic case studies. Several explanations for this pattern have been suggested, and departures from the predictions of this rule are common among mammals of differing body size, trophic habits, and phylogenetic affinities. Here we offer a new explanation for the evolution of body size of large insular mammals, using evidence from both living and fossil island faunal assemblages. We demonstrate that the extent of dwarfism in ungulates depends on the existence of competitors and, to a lesser extent, on the presence of predators. In contrast, competition and predation have little or no effect on insular carnivore body size, which is influenced by the nature of the resource base. We suggest dwarfism in large herbivores is an outcome of the fitness increase resulting from the acceleration of reproduction in low-mortality environments. Carnivore size is dependent on the abundance and size of their prey. Size evolution of large mammals in different trophic levels has different underlying mechanisms, resulting in different patterns. Absolute body size may be only an indirect predictor of size evolution, with ecological interactions playing a major role.     

Biogeography of body size in Pacific island birds

Many insular vertebrates have undergone rapid and dramatic changes in body size compared to their mainland counterparts. Here we explore the relationship between two well known patterns of island body size – the tendency for large‐bodied species to dwarf and small‐bodied species to get larger on islands, known as the “island rule”, and the scaling of maximum and minimum body size of island assemblages with island area. Drawing on both fossil and modern data, we examined the relationship between body size and island area in Pacific island birds, both within clades and at the island assemblage level. We found that the size of the smallest bird on each island decreased with island area while the maximum body size increased with island area. Similarly, within clades the body size of small‐bodied groups decreased and large‐bodied groups increased from small to large islands, consistent with the island rule. However, the magnitude of size change within clades was not sufficient to explain the overall scaling of maximum size with island area. Instead, the pattern was driven primarily by the evolution of very large, flightless birds on large islands. Human‐mediated extinctions on islands over the past few millennia severely impacted large, flightless birds, to the effect that this macroecological pattern has been virtually erased. After controlling for effects of biogeographic region and island area, we found island productivity to be the best predictor of maximum size in flightless birds. This result, and the striking similarities in maximum body size between flightless birds and island mammals, suggests a common energetic mechanism linking body size and landmass area in both the island rule and the scaling of island body size extremes.     

Morphological evolution is accelerated among island mammals

Dramatic evolutionary changes occur in species isolated on islands, but it is not known if the rate of evolution is accelerated on islands relative to the mainland. Based on an extensive review of the literature, I used the fossil record combined with data from living species to test the hypothesis of an accelerated morphological evolution among island mammals. I demonstrate that rates of morphological evolution are significantly greater—up to a factor of 3.1—for islands than for mainland mammal populations. The tendency for faster evolution on islands holds over relatively short time scales—from a few decades up to several thousands of years—but not over larger ones—up to 12 million y. These analyses form the first empirical test of the long held supposition of accelerated evolution among island mammals. Moreover, this result shows that mammal species have the intrinsic capacity to evolve faster when confronted with a rapid change in their environment. This finding is relevant to our understanding of species' responses to isolation and destruction of natural habitats within the current context of rapid climate warming.     

Convergence in reduced body size,head size,and blood glucose in three island reptiles

Many oceanic islands harbor diverse species that differ markedly from their mainland relatives with respect to morphology, behavior, and physiology. A particularly common morphological change exhibited by a wide range of species on islands worldwide involves either a reduction in body size, termed island dwarfism, or an increase in body size, termed island gigantism. While numerous instances of dwarfism and gigantism have been well documented, documentation of other morphological changes on islands remains limited. Furthermore, we lack a basic understanding of the physiological mechanisms that underlie these changes, and whether they are convergent. A major hypothesis for the repeated evolution of dwarfism posits selection for smaller, more efficient body sizes in the context of low resource availability. Under this hypothesis, we would expect the physiological mechanisms known to be downregulated in model organisms exhibiting small body sizes due to dietary restriction or artificial selection would also be downregulated in wild species exhibiting dwarfism on islands. We measured body size, relative head size, and circulating blood glucose in three species of reptiles—two snakes and one lizard—in the California Channel Islands relative to mainland populations. Collating data from 6 years of study, we found that relative to mainland population the island populations had smaller body size (i.e., island dwarfism), smaller head sizes relative to body size, and lower levels of blood glucose, although with some variation by sex and year. These findings suggest that the island populations of these three species have independently evolved convergent physiological changes (lower glucose set point) corresponding to convergent changes in morphology that are consistent with a scenario of reduced resource availability and/or changes in prey size on the islands. This provides a powerful system to further investigate ecological, physiological, and genetic variables to elucidate the mechanisms underlying convergent changes in life history on islands.     

Mammals of Borneo – small size on a large island

Aim Island mammals have featured prominently in models of the evolution of body size. Most of these models examine size evolution across a wide range of islands in order to test which island characteristics influence evolutionary pathways. Here, we examine the mammalian fauna of a single island, Borneo, where previous work has detected that some mammal species have evolved a relatively small size. We test whether Borneo is characterized by smaller mammals than adjacent areas, and examine possible causes for the different trajectories of size evolution between different Bornean species. Location Sundaland: Borneo, Sumatra, Java and the Malay/Thai Peninsula. Methods We compared the mammalian body size frequency distributions in the four areas to examine whether the large mammal fauna of Borneo is more depauperate than elsewhere. We measured specimens belonging to 54 mammal species that are shared between Borneo and any of the other areas in order to determine whether there is an intraspecific tendency for Bornean mammals to evolve small body size. Using data on diet, body size and geographical ranges we examine factors that are thought to influence body size. Results Borneo has fewer large mammals than the other areas, but this is not statistically significant. Large Bornean mammals are significantly smaller than their conspecifics in the other regions, while there are no differences between the body sizes of mammals on Sumatra, Java and the Malay/Thai Peninsula. The finding that large mammals show the greatest size difference between Borneo and elsewhere contrasts with some models of size evolution on islands of different areas. Diet does not correlate with the degree of size reduction. Sunda region endemics show a weaker tendency to be small on Borneo than do widespread species. Main conclusions We suggest that soil quality may drive size evolution by affecting primary productivity. On Borneo, where soils are generally poor in nutrients, this may both limit biomass and cause mammals to be reduced in body size. We hypothesize that widespread species respond to low resource abundance by reducing in size, while endemic elements of the fauna have had longer to adjust to local conditions by altering their behaviour, physiology and/or ecology, and are thus similar in size across the region.     

Rule reversal: Ecogeographical patterns of body size variation in the common treeshrew (Mammalia,Scandentia)

There are a number of ecogeographical “rules” that describe patterns of geographical variation among organisms. The island rule predicts that populations of larger mammals on islands evolve smaller mean body size than their mainland counterparts, whereas smaller‐bodied mammals evolve larger size. Bergmann's rule predicts that populations of a species in colder climates (generally at higher latitudes) have larger mean body sizes than conspecifics in warmer climates (at lower latitudes). These two rules are rarely tested together and neither has been rigorously tested in treeshrews, a clade of small‐bodied mammals in their own order (Scandentia) broadly distributed in mainland Southeast Asia and on islands throughout much of the Sunda Shelf. The common treeshrew, Tupaia glis, is an excellent candidate for study and was used to test these two rules simultaneously for the first time in treeshrews. This species is distributed on the Malay Peninsula and several offshore islands east, west, and south of the mainland. Using craniodental dimensions as a proxy for body size, we investigated how island size, distance from the mainland, and maximum sea depth between the mainland and the islands relate to body size of 13 insular T. glis populations while also controlling for latitude and correlation among variables. We found a strong negative effect of latitude on body size in the common treeshrew, indicating the inverse of Bergmann's rule. We did not detect any overall difference in body size between the island and mainland populations. However, there was an effect of island area and maximum sea depth on body size among island populations. Although there is a strong latitudinal effect on body size, neither Bergmann's rule nor the island rule applies to the common treeshrew. The results of our analyses demonstrate the necessity of assessing multiple variables simultaneously in studies of ecogeographical rules.     

Area, isolation and body size evolution in insular carnivores

Body sizes of insular mammals often differ strikingly from those of their mainland conspecifics. Small islands have reduced numbers of competitor and predator species, and more limited resources. Such reductions are believed to select for predictable changes in body sizes, with large mammals growing progressively smaller as island area decreases, while small ones grow progressively larger. Medium-sized mammals are thought to be largest on intermediate-sized islands. Increased isolation is seen as promoting insular gigantism. We searched for such patterns using a large database of insular carnivore specimens. Neither small nor large carnivores show a consistent area/body size relationship. Medium-sized carnivores are no more likely to attain large size on medium-sized islands then they are to be small there. We found no consistent patterns of body size variation in relation to isolation.     

Testing the ‘island rule’ for a tenebrionid beetle (Coleoptera,Tenebrionidae)

Insular populations and their closest mainland counterparts commonly display body size differences that are considered to fit the island rule, a theoretical framework to explain both dwarfism and gigantism in isolated animal populations. The island rule is used to explain the pattern of change of body size at the inter-specific level. But the model implicitly makes also a prediction for the body size of isolated populations of a single species. It suggests that, for a hypothetical species covering a wide range of island sizes, there exists a specific island size where this species reaches the largest body size. Body size would be small (in relative terms) in the smallest islets of the species range. It would increase with island size, and reach a maximum at some specific island size. However, additional increases from such a specific island size would instead promote body size reduction, and small (in relative terms) body sizes would be found again on the largest islands. The biogeographical patterns predicted by the island rule have been described and analysed for vertebrates only (mainly mammals), but remain largely untested for insects or other invertebrates. I analyse here the pattern of body size variation between seven isolated insular populations of a flightless beetle, Asida planipennis (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). This is an endemic species of Mallorca, Menorca and a number of islands and islets in the Balearic archipelago (western Mediterranean). The study covers seven of the 15 known populations (i.e., there are only 15 islands or islets inhabited by the species). The populations studied fit the pattern advanced above and we could, therefore, extrapolate the island rule to a very different kind of organism. However, the small sample size of some of the populations invites some caution at this early stage.     

Mammals evolve faster on smaller islands

Island mammals often display remarkable evolutionary changes in size and morphology. Both theory and empirical data support the hypothesis that island mammals evolve at faster rates than their mainland congeners. It is also often assumed that the island effect is stronger and that evolution is faster on the smallest islands. I used a dataset assembled from the literature to test these assumptions for the first time. I show that mammals on smaller islands do indeed evolve more rapidly than mammals on larger islands, and also evolve by a greater amount. These results fit well the theory of an evolutionary burst due to the opening of new ecological opportunities on islands. This evolutionary burst is expected to be the strongest on the smallest islands where the contrast between the island and the mainland environments is the most dramatic.     

The tempo and mode of evolution: body sizes of island mammals

The tempo and mode of body size evolution on islands are believed to be well known. It is thought that body size evolves relatively quickly on islands toward the mammalian modal value, thus generating extreme cases of size evolution and the island rule. Here, we tested both theories in a phylogenetically explicit context, by using two different species-level mammalian phylogenetic hypotheses limited to sister clades dichotomizing into an exclusively insular and an exclusively mainland daughter nodes. Taken as a whole, mammals were found to show a largely punctuational mode of size evolution. We found that, accounting for this, and regardless of the phylogeny used, size evolution on islands is no faster than on the continents. We compared different selection regimes using a set of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models to examine the effects of insularity of the mode of evolution. The models strongly supported clade-specific selection regimes. Under this regime, however, an evolutionary model allowing insular species to evolve differently from their mainland relatives performs worse than a model that ignores insularity as a factor. Thus, insular taxa do not experience statistically different selection from their mainland relatives.     

Stranded on an island: consequences of forest fragmentation for body size variations in an arboreal mammal, the edible dormouse (Glis glis)

The island rule states that small mammals isolated on islands have the evolutionary tendency to become larger, while large mammals tend to become smaller. However, the underlying mechanisms and life history consequences of these insular shifts in body size still remain speculative. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an arboreal mammal, the edible dormouse (Glis glis), showed shifts in body size when inhabiting isolated forest fragments. We analysed a data set of 541 individuals captured between 2005 and 2010 in four different forest fragments and one continuous forest, which served as a reference area. Sex, age, body mass, and size of all individuals were known. We used linear mixed-effect models to investigate whether individuals differed in their body size and mass between forest fragments and continuous forest. Our study revealed that edible dormice inhabiting forest fragments were significantly larger and heavier than individuals in the continuous forest, in accordance with patterns described by the island rule for small mammals. Because edible dormice frequently use nest boxes to rest during the day and to rear offspring, the life history strategies of this rodent can be easily investigated under evolutionary relevant conditions in the field. Thus the edible dormouse represents an excellent model organism for studying the mechanisms underlying shifts in body size as a response to habitat fragmentation and to investigate the consequences of these shifts on their life history strategies.