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.     

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.     

One size does not fit all: no evidence for an optimal body size on islands

Aim Optimal body size theories predict that large clades have a single, optimal, body size that serves as an evolutionary attractor, with the full body size spectrum of a clade resulting from interspecific competition. Because interspecific competition is believed to be reduced on islands, such theories predict that insular animals should be closer to the optimal size than mainland animals. We test the resulting prediction that insular clade members should therefore have narrower body size ranges than their mainland relatives. Location World‐wide. Methods We used body sizes and a phylogenetic tree of 4004 mammal species, including more than 200 species that went extinct since the last ice age. We tested, in a phylogenetically explicit framework, whether insular taxa converge on an optimal size and whether insular clades have narrow size ranges. Results We found no support for any of the predictions of the optimal size theory. No specific size serves as an evolutionary attractor. We did find consistent evidence that large (> 10 kg) mammals grow smaller on islands. Smaller species, however, show no consistent tendency to either dwarf or grow larger on islands. Size ranges of insular taxa are not narrower than expected by chance given the number of species in their clades, nor are they narrower than the size ranges of their mainland sister clades – despite insular clade members showing strong phylogenetic clustering. Main conclusions The concept of a single optimal body size is not supported by the data that were thought most likely to show it. We reject the notion that inclusive clades evolve towards a body‐plan‐specific optimum.     

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.     

Classification tree methods provide a multifactorial approach to predicting insular body size evolution in rodents

Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain size changes in insular mammals, but no single variable suffices to explain the diversity of responses, particularly within Rodentia. Here in a data set on insular rodents, we observe strong consistency in the direction of size change within islands and within species but (outside of Heteromyidae) little consistency at broader taxonomic scales. Using traits of islands and of species in a classification tree analysis, we find the most important factor predicting direction of change to be mainland body mass (large rodents decrease, small ones increase); other variables (island climate, number of rodent species, and area) were significant, although their roles as revealed by the classification tree were context dependent. Ecological interactions appear relatively uninformative, and on any given island, the largest and smallest rodent species converged or diverged in size with equal frequency. Our approach provides a promising framework for continuing examination of insular body size evolution.     

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.     

Insular shifts in body size of rice frogs in the Zhoushan Archipelago, China

1. Differences in body size between mainland and island populations have been reported for reptiles, birds and mammals. Despite widespread recognition of insular shifts in body size in these taxa, there have been no reports of such body size shifts in amphibians. 2. We provide the first evidence of an insular shift in body size for an amphibian species, the rice frog Rana limnocharis. We found significant increases in body size of rice frogs on most sampled islands in the Zhoushan archipelago when compared with neighbouring mainland China. 3. Large body size in rice frogs on islands was significantly related to increased population density, in both breeding and non-breeding seasons. Increases in rice frog density were significantly related to higher resource availability on islands. Increased resource availability on islands has led to higher carrying capacities, which has subsequently facilitated higher densities and individual growth rates, resulting in larger body size in rice frogs. We also suggest that large body size has evolved on islands, as larger individuals are competitively superior under conditions of harsh intraspecific competition at high densities. 4. Increases in body size in rice frogs were not related to several factors that have been implicated previously in insular shifts in body size in other taxa. We found no significant relationships between body size of rice frogs and prey size, number of larger or smaller frog species, island area or distance of islands from the mainland. 5. Our findings contribute to the formation of a broad, repeatable ecological generality for insular shifts in body size across a range of terrestrial vertebrate taxa, and provide support for recent theoretical work concerning the importance of resource availability for insular shifts in body size.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The bigger they come, the harder they fall: body size and prey abundance influence predator-prey ratios

Large carnivores are highly threatened, yet the processes underlying their population declines are still poorly understood and widely debated. We explored how body mass and prey abundance influence carnivore density using data on 199 populations obtained across multiple sites for 11 carnivore species. We found that relative decreases in prey abundance resulted in a five- to sixfold greater decrease in the largest carnivores compared with the smallest species. We discuss a number of possible causes for this inherent vulnerability, but also explore a possible mechanistic link between predator size, energetics and population processes. Our results have important implications for carnivore ecology and conservation, demonstrating that larger species are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic threats to their environment, especially those which have an adverse affect on the abundance of their prey.     

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.     

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.     

Empirical evidence for an optimal body size in snakes

Abstract The concept of optimal size has been invoked to explain patterns in body size of terrestrial mammals. However, the generality of this phenomenon has not been tested with similarly complete data from other taxonomic groups. In this study we describe three statistical patterns of body size in snakes, all of which indicate an optimal length of 1.0 m. First, a distribution of largest body lengths of 618 snake species had a single mode at 1.0 m. Second, we found a positive relationship between the size of the largest member of an island snake assemblage and island area and a negative relationship between the size of the smallest member of an island snake assemblage and island area. Best-fit lines through these data cross at a point corresponding to 1.0 m in body length, the presumed optimal size for a one-species island. Third, mainland snake species smaller than 1.0 m become larger on islands whereas those larger than 1.0 m become smaller on islands. The observation that all three analyses converge on a common body size is concordant with patterns observed in mammals and partial analyses of four other disparate animal clades. Because snakes differ so strikingly from mammals (ectotherms, gape-limited predators, elongate body shape) the concordant patterns of these two groups provide strong evidence for the evolution of an optimal body size within independent monophyletic groups. However, snakes differ from other taxonomic groups that have been studied in exhibiting a body size distribution that is not obviously skewed in either direction. We suggest that idiosyncratic features of the natural history of ectotherms allow relatively unconstrained distributions of body size whereas physiological limitations of endotherms constrain distributions of body size to a right skew.     

‘On being the right size’ – Do aliens follow the rules?

Aim

To assess whether mammalian species introduced onto islands across the globe have evolved to exhibit body size patterns consistent with the ‘island rule,’, and to test an ecological explanation for body size evolution of insular mammals.

Location

Islands worldwide.

Methods

We assembled data on body mass, geographical characteristics (latitude, maximum elevation) and ecological communities (number of mammalian competitors, predators and prey) for 385 introduced populations across 285 islands, comprising 56 species of extant, non‐volant mammals. We used linear regression, ANCOVA and regression tree analyses to test whether introduced populations of mammals exhibit the island rule pattern, whether the degree of body size change increased with time in isolation and whether residual variation about the general trend can be attributed to the geographical and ecological characteristics of the islands.

Results

Introduced populations follow the predicted island rule trend, with body size shifts more pronounced for populations with greater residence times on the islands. Small mammals evolved to larger body sizes in lower latitudes and on islands with limited topographic relief. Consistent with our hypothesis on the ecology of evolution, body size of insular introduced populations was influenced by co‐occurring species of mammalian competitors, predators and prey.

Conclusion

The island rule is a pervasive pattern, exhibited across a broad span of geographical regions, taxa, time periods and, as evidenced here, for introduced as well as native mammals. Time in isolation impacts body size evolution profoundly. Body size shift of introduced mammals was much more pronounced with increasing residence times, yet far less than that exhibited by native, palaeo‐insular mammals (residence times > 10,000 years). Given the antiquity of many species introductions, it appears that much of what we view as the natural character and ecological dynamics of recent insular communities may have been rendered artefacts of ancient colonizations by humans and commensals.     

Examining the Prey Mass of Terrestrial and Aquatic Carnivorous Mammals: Minimum,Maximum and Range

Predator-prey body mass relationships are a vital part of food webs across ecosystems and provide key information for predicting the susceptibility of carnivore populations to extinction. Despite this, there has been limited research on the minimum and maximum prey size of mammalian carnivores. Without information on large-scale patterns of prey mass, we limit our understanding of predation pressure, trophic cascades and susceptibility of carnivores to decreasing prey populations. The majority of studies that examine predator-prey body mass relationships focus on either a single or a subset of mammalian species, which limits the strength of our models as well as their broader application. We examine the relationship between predator body mass and the minimum, maximum and range of their prey''s body mass across 108 mammalian carnivores, from weasels to baleen whales (Carnivora and Cetacea). We test whether mammals show a positive relationship between prey and predator body mass, as in reptiles and birds, as well as examine how environment (aquatic and terrestrial) and phylogenetic relatedness play a role in this relationship. We found that phylogenetic relatedness is a strong driver of predator-prey mass patterns in carnivorous mammals and accounts for a higher proportion of variance compared with the biological drivers of body mass and environment. We show a positive predator-prey body mass pattern for terrestrial mammals as found in reptiles and birds, but no relationship for aquatic mammals. Our results will benefit our understanding of trophic interactions, the susceptibility of carnivores to population declines and the role of carnivores within ecosystems.     

Why are some species more commonly afflicted by arthritis than others? A comparative study of spondyloarthropathy in primates and carnivores

Spondyloarthropathy is a painful arthritic affliction of humans that also occurs in wild mammals. Important questions remain concerning the underlying causes of spondyloarthropathy in mammals, particularly regarding whether it is infectious in origin or driven by genetic predisposition and environmental stressors. Moreover, spondyloarthropathy has negative effects on host fitness, leading to potential conservation concerns if it impacts threatened species. Using a comparative data set on the prevalence of joint disease in 34 primate species and 100 carnivore species, we tested predictions involving the epidemiological correlates of spondyloarthropathy in wild mammals. Analyses revealed that 5.6% of primates and 3.6% of carnivores exhibited signs of spondyloarthropathy, with maximum incidence as high as 22% in great apes and 27% in bears. We tested whether prevalence of spondyloarthropathy increases with population density and group size, greater contact with soil, a slower host life history, increased ranging, dietary factors and body mass. We found general support for an effect of body mass, with larger bodied primates and carnivores exhibiting a higher prevalence of spondyloarthropathy. In addition, more threatened species experienced higher rates of spondyloarthropathy, with this association influenced by body mass and phylogeny. The effect of body mass could reflect that larger animals are exposed to more pathogens through greater consumption of resources, or that joints of larger bodied mammals experience greater biomechanical stresses, resulting in inflammation and activation of local joint infections.     

A food web perspective on large herbivore community limitation

The exceptional diversity of large mammals in African savannas provides an ideal opportunity to explore the relative importance of top‐down and bottom‐up controls of large terrestrial herbivore communities. Recent work has emphasized the role of herbivore and carnivore body size in shaping these trophic relationships. However, the lack of across‐ecosystem comparisons using a common methodology prohibits general conclusions. Here we used published data on primary production, herbivore and carnivore densities and diets to estimate the consumption fluxes between three trophic levels in four African savanna ecosystems. Our food web approach suggests that the body size distribution within and across trophic levels has a strong influence on the strength of top‐down control of herbivores by carnivores and on consumption fluxes within ecosystems, as predicted by theoretical food web models. We generalize findings from the Serengeti ecosystem that suggest herbivore species below 150 kg are more likely to be limited by predation. We also emphasize the key functional role played by the largest species at each trophic level. The abundance of the largest herbivore species largely governs the consumption of primary production in resident communities. Similarly, predator guilds in which the largest carnivore species represent a larger share of carnivore biomass are likely to exert a stronger top‐down impact on herbivores. Our study shows how a food web approach allows integrating current knowledge and offers a powerful framework to better understand the functioning of ecosystems.