Macroecological correlates of richness, body size, and species range size in terrestrial vertebrates across the world

Abstract

Species richness, body size, and range size are among key subjects in animal macroecology and biogeography. To date, the species richness–body size–range size nexus remains largely understudied at a global scale and for large taxonomic groups. Here we examine the relative role of species richness and body size in determining species range size among terrestrial vertebrates across spatial and taxonomic scales. We then test related hypotheses in the context of Rapoport’s rule, latitude, and climate variation. To do this, we used simultaneous autoregressive analysis and structural equation modeling to test for statistical relationships among species richness, body size, and range size for all terrestrial vertebrates and for each continent. We then investigated the relative contributions of richness, body size, latitude, climate variation, and their combinations in the variations in species range sizes. We found that species richness consistently shows strong negative correlations with range size at global, regional, and within-region levels, and for all terrestrial vertebrates, and for each of the four classes (i.e., birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles). The strength of the relationships increased with richness and with spatial and taxonomic scales. Globally, species richness explained more variation in species range size than did latitude and climates. Body size contributed significantly to the range sizes of all four classes but especially reptiles and amphibians. However, the relative contributions of these factors varied substantially among the continents and terrestrial vertebrate classes. Comparison with the findings of a previous study shows that there were also significant differences in regional patterns between terrestrial vertebrates and plants and the relative contributions of diversity vs. latitude. Our findings show clear relationships among species richness, body size, and range size, but the strength of the relationships varies among regions and taxonomic groups. In general, species richness could predict species range size better than body size, latitude, and climate. These results have important theoretical and applied implications.