Of mice and mammoths: generality and antiquity of the island rule

Aim

We assessed the generality of the island rule in a database comprising 1593 populations of insular mammals (439 species, including 63 species of fossil mammals), and tested whether observed patterns differed among taxonomic and functional groups.

Location

Islands world‐wide.

Methods

We measured museum specimens (fossil mammals) and reviewed the literature to compile a database of insular animal body size (S_i = mean mass of individuals from an insular population divided by that of individuals from an ancestral or mainland population, M). We used linear regressions to investigate the relationship between S_i and M, and ANCOVA to compare trends among taxonomic and functional groups.

Results

S_i was significantly and negatively related to the mass of the ancestral or mainland population across all mammals and within all orders of extant mammals analysed, and across palaeo‐insular (considered separately) mammals as well. Insular body size was significantly smaller for bats and insectivores than for the other orders studied here, but significantly larger for mammals that utilized aquatic prey than for those restricted to terrestrial prey.

Main conclusions

The island rule appears to be a pervasive pattern, exhibited by mammals from a broad range of orders, functional groups and time periods. There remains, however, much scatter about the general trend; this residual variation may be highly informative as it appears consistent with differences among species, islands and environmental characteristics hypothesized to influence body size evolution in general. The more pronounced gigantism and dwarfism of palaeo‐insular mammals, in particular, is consistent with a hypothesis that emphasizes the importance of ecological interactions (time in isolation from mammalian predators and competitors was 0.1 to > 1.0 Myr for palaeo‐insular mammals, but < 0.01 Myr for extant populations of insular mammals). While ecological displacement may be a major force driving diversification in body size in high‐diversity biotas, ecological release in species‐poor biotas often results in the convergence of insular mammals on the size of intermediate but absent species.     

Body size of insular carnivores: evidence from the fossil record

Aim Our goals here are to: (1) assess the generality of one aspect of the island rule – the progressive trend towards decrease in size in larger species – for fossil carnivores on islands; (2) offer causal explanations for this pattern and deviations from it – as far as fossil carnivores are concerned; and (3) estimate the speed of this trend. Location Oceanic and oceanic‐like islands world‐wide. Methods Body size estimates of fossil insular carnivores and of their phylogenetically closest mainland relative were obtained from our own data and the published literature. Our dataset consisted of 18 species from nine islands world‐wide. These data were used to test whether the body size of fossil insular carnivores varies as a function of body size of the mainland species in combination with characteristics of the island ecosystem. Results Dwarfism was observed in two canid species. Moderate decrease in body mass was observed in one hyena species. Gigantism was observed in one otter species. Moderate body mass increase was observed in two otter species, one galictine mustelid and perhaps one canid. Negligible or no change in body mass at all was observed in five otter species, three galictine mustelids and one genet. Size changes in teeth do not lag behind in comparison to skeletal elements in the dwarfed canids. The evolutionary speed of dwarfism in a canid lineage is low. Main conclusions Size change in fossil terrestrial insular carnivores was constrained by certain ecological conditions, especially the availability of prey of appropriate body size. When such alternative prey was not available, the carnivores retained their mainland size. The impact of competitive carnivores seems negligible. The case of (semi‐)aquatic carnivores is much less clear. The species that maintained their ancestral body mass may have changed their diet, as is evidenced by their dentition. Among the otters, one case of significant size increase was observed, perhaps best explained as being due to it entering the niche of an obligate aquatic otter. Dwarfism was not observed in otters. The island rule seems to apply to fossil carnivores, but with exceptions. The dependency of the island rule on resource availability is emphasized by the present study.     

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 island rule: An assessment of biases and research trends

Aim

The island rule has been widely applied to a range of taxonomic groups, with some studies reporting supporting evidence but others questioning this hypothesis. To bring more clarity to this debate, we conducted a comparative analysis of the available literature, focussing on potential biases.

Location

Worldwide.

Methods

We performed a systematic review to identify studies testing the island rule and translated these studies’ outcomes, so that they follow a consistent approach. The studies were assessed for differences in their analysis of the island rule. We created an authorship network showing who published studies with whom on the topic and weighted the data based on co‐authorship and number of publications.

Results

We identified 143 relevant studies, finding a significantly lower frequency of supporting studies according to our consistent approach (50%) than the authors’ own statements (59%). Two core‐author groups could be identified with a strong publication record on the island rule. The first group has predominately published studies supporting the rule, whereas the other group has mainly published studies questioning it. According to a subsequent analysis excluding studies with a high risk of HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known), the frequency of studies supporting the rule further dropped to 42%.

Main conclusions

Empirical support for the island rule is low, especially for non‐mammalian taxa and when using a consistent evaluation approach. Differences among studies in supporting versus questioning this hypothesis seem to be partly due to author‐related biases. Methods to address potential biases in studying ecological hypotheses are urgently needed. We offer such a method here.     

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 and the evolution of body size in the deep sea

Aim  Our goal is to test the generality of the island rule – a graded trend from gigantism in small-bodied species to dwarfism in large-bodied species – in the deep sea, a non-insular but potentially analogous system.
Location  Shallow-water and deep-sea benthic habitats in the western Atlantic Ocean from the North to South Poles.
Methods  We conducted regression analyses of body size of deep-sea gastropods species relative to their shallow-water congeners using measurements from the Malacolog ver. 3.3.3 database.
Results  Our results indicate that, consistent with the island rule, gastropod genera with small-bodied, shallow-water species have significantly larger deep-sea representatives, while the opposite is true for genera that are large-bodied in shallow water. Bathymetric body size clines within the deep sea are also consistent with predictions based on the island rule.
Main conclusions  Like islands, the deep sea is characterized by low absolute food availability, leading us to hypothesize that the island rule is a result of selection on body size in a resource-constrained environment. The body size of deep-sea species tends to converge on an optimal size for their particular ecological strategy and habitat.     

Climate change and size evolution in an island rodent species: new perspectives on the island rule

As stated by the island rule, small mammals evolve toward gigantism on islands. In addition they are known to evolve faster than their mainland counterparts. Body size in island mammals may also be influenced by geographical climatic gradients or climatic change through time. We tested the relative effects of climate change and isolation on the size of the Japanese rodent Apodemus speciosus and calculated evolutionary rates of body size change since the last glacial maximum (LGM). Currently A. speciosus populations conform both to Bergmann's rule, with an increase in body size with latitude, and to the island rule, with larger body sizes on small islands. We also found that fossil representatives of A. speciosus are larger than their extant relatives. Our estimated evolutionary rates since the LGM show that body size evolution on the smaller islands has been less than half as rapid as on Honshu, the mainland-type large island of Japan. We conclude that island populations exhibit larger body sizes today not because they have evolved toward gigantism, but because their evolution toward a smaller size, due to climate warming since the LGM, has been decelerated by the island effect. These combined results suggest that evolution in Quaternary island small mammals may not have been as fast as expected by the island effect because of the counteracting effect of climate change during this period.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Rapid evolution of great kiskadees on Bermuda: an assessment of the ability of the island rule to predict the direction of contemporary evolution in exotic vertebrates

Aim To determine whether an exotic bird species, the great kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), has diverged in morphology from its native source population, and, if so, has done so in a manner predicted by the island rule. The island rule predicts that insular vertebrates will tend towards dwarfism or gigantism when isolated on islands, depending on their body size. For birds, the island rule predicts that species with body sizes below 70–120 g should increase in size. The great kiskadee has a mean mass of c. 60 g in its native range, therefore we predicted that it would increase in size within the exotic, and more insular, Bermudan range. Location The islands of Bermuda (exotic population) and Trinidad (native source population). Methods We took eight morphological measurements on 84 individuals captured in the exotic (Bermudan) population and 62 individuals captured in the native source (Trinidadian) population. We compared morphological metrics between populations using univariate and principal components analyses. We assessed whether the effects of genetic drift could explain observed differences in morphology. We calculated divergence rates in haldanes and darwins for comparison with published examples of contemporary evolution. Finally, we used mark–recapture analysis to determine the effects of the measured morphological characters on survivorship within the exotic Bermudan population. Results Individuals in the exotic Bermudan population have larger morphological dimensions than individuals in the native source population on Trinidad. The degree of divergence in body mass (g) and bill width (mm) is probably not due to genetic drift. This rate of divergence is nearly equal to that observed amongst well‐documented examples of contemporary bird evolution, and is within the mid‐range of rates reported across taxa. There is no clear effect of body size on survivorship as only one character (bill width) was found to have an influence on individual survivorship. Main conclusions Exotic species provide useful systems for examining evolutionary predictions over contemporary time‐scales. We found that divergence between the exotic and native populations of this bird species occurred over c. 17 generations, and was in the direction predicted by the island rule, a principle based on the study of native species.     

The island rule and a research agenda for studying ecogeographical patterns

We are currently experiencing a resurgence of interest in ecogeographical rules, which describe general trends in morphology and related traits along geographical gradients. In order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the generality and underlying causal mechanisms for these patterns, we recommend a new, more integrated research agenda. In particular, we recommend studies that simultaneously consider different clines in morphology, geographical ranges and diversity as intricately related phenomena; all being ecological, evolutionary and biogeographical responses of organisms to selection regimes that vary non-randomly over space and time, and among species with different ecological and evolutionary histories.     

Body size evolution in Mesozoic birds: little evidence for Cope's rule

Cope's rule, the tendency towards evolutionary increases in body size, is a long-standing macroevolutionary generalization that has the potential to provide insights into directionality in evolution; however, both the definition and identification of Cope's rule are controversial and problematic. A recent study [J. Evol. Biol. 21 (2008) 618] examined body size evolution in Mesozoic birds, and claimed to have identified evidence of Cope's rule occurring as a result of among-lineage species sorting. We here reassess the results of this study, and additionally carry out novel analyses testing for within-lineage patterns in body size evolution in Mesozoic birds. We demonstrate that the nonphylogenetic methods used by this previous study cannot distinguish between among- and within-lineage processes, and that statistical support for their results and conclusions is extremely weak. Our ancestor-descendant within-lineage analyses explicitly incorporate recent phylogenetic hypotheses and find little compelling evidence for Cope's rule. Cope's rule is not supported in Mesozoic birds by the available data, and body size evolution currently provides no insights into avian survivorship through the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction.     

Cope's rule and the evolution of body size in Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia: Carnivora)

Cope's rule describes the evolutionary trend for animal lineages to increase in body size over time. In this study, we tested the validity of Cope's rule for a marine mammal clade, the Pinnipedimorpha, which includes the extinct Desmatophocidae, and extant Phocidae (earless seals), Otariidae (fur seals and sea lions), and Odobenidae (walruses). We tested for the presence of Cope's rule by compiling a large dataset of body size data for extant and fossil pinnipeds and then examined how body size evolved through time. We found that there was a positive relationship between geologic age and body size. However, this trend is the result of differences between early assemblages of small-bodied pinnipeds (Oligocene to early Miocene) and later assemblages (middle Miocene to Pliocene) for which species exhibited greater size diversity. No significant differences were found between the number of increases or decreases in body size within Pinnipedimorpha or within specific pinniped clades. This suggests that the pinniped body size increase was driven by passive diversification into vacant niche space, with the common ancestor of Pinnipedimorpha occurring near the minimum adult body size possible for a marine mammal. Based upon the above results, the evolutionary history of pinnipeds does not follow Cope's rule.