Dataset Information

The limits to population density in birds and mammals.

ABSTRACT: We address two fundamental ecological questions: what are the limits to animal population density and what determines those limits? We develop simple alternative models to predict population limits in relation to body mass. A model assuming that within-species area use increases with the square of daily travel distance broadly predicts the scaling of empirical extremes of minimum density across birds and mammals. Consistent with model predictions, the estimated density range for a given mass, 'population scope', is greater for birds than for mammals. However, unlike mammals and carnivorous birds, expected broad relationships between body mass and density extremes are not supported by data on herbivorous and omnivorous birds. Our results suggest that simple constraints on mobility and energy use/supply are major determinants of the scaling of density limits, but further understanding of interactions between dietary constraints and density limits are needed to predict future wildlife population responses to anthropogenic threats.

SUBMITTER: Stephens PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6850427 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The limits to population density in birds and mammals.

Stephens Philip A PA Vieira Marcus V MV Willis Stephen G SG Carbone Chris C

Ecology letters 20190206 4

We address two fundamental ecological questions: what are the limits to animal population density and what determines those limits? We develop simple alternative models to predict population limits in relation to body mass. A model assuming that within-species area use increases with the square of daily travel distance broadly predicts the scaling of empirical extremes of minimum density across birds and mammals. Consistent with model predictions, the estimated density range for a given mass, 'p ...[more]

PMID: 30724435

Similar Datasets

Project description:The use of long-term population data to separate the demographic role of climate from density-modified demographic processes has become a major topic of ecological investigation over the last two decades. Although the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that determine the strength of density feedbacks are now well understood, the degree to which climate gradients shape those processes across taxa and broad spatial scales remains unclear. Intuitively, harsh or highly variable environmental conditions should weaken compensatory density feedbacks because populations are hypothetically unable to achieve or maintain densities at which social and trophic interactions (e.g., competition, parasitism, predation, disease) might systematically reduce population growth. Here we investigate variation in the strength of compensatory density feedback, from long-term time series of abundance over 146 species of birds and mammals, in response to spatial gradients of broad-scale temperature precipitation variables covering 97 localities in 28 countries. We use information-theoretic metrics to rank phylogenetic generalized least-squares regression models that control for sample size (time-series length) and phylogenetic non-independence. Climatic factors explained < 1% of the remaining variation in density-feedback strength across species, with the highest non-control, model-averaged effect sizes related to extreme precipitation variables. We could not link our results directly to other published studies, because ecologists use contrasting responses, predictors and statistical approaches to correlate density feedback and climate--at the expense of comparability in a macroecological context. Censuses of multiple populations within a given species, and a priori knowledge of the spatial scales at which density feedbacks interact with climate, seem to be necessary to determine cross-taxa variation in this phenomenon. Despite the availability of robust modelling tools, the appropriate data have not yet been gathered for most species, meaning that we cannot yet make any robust generalisations about how demographic feedbacks interact with climate.

Project description:Many birds and mammals drastically reduce their energy expenditure during times of cold exposure, food shortage, or drought, by temporarily abandoning euthermia, i.e. the maintenance of high body temperatures. Traditionally, two different types of heterothermy, i.e. hypometabolic states associated with low body temperature (torpor), have been distinguished: daily torpor, which lasts less than 24 h and is accompanied by continued foraging, versus hibernation, with torpor bouts lasting consecutive days to several weeks in animals that usually do not forage but rely on energy stores, either food caches or body energy reserves. This classification of torpor types has been challenged, suggesting that these phenotypes may merely represent extremes in a continuum of traits. Here, we investigate whether variables of torpor in 214 species (43 birds and 171 mammals) form a continuum or a bimodal distribution. We use Gaussian-mixture cluster analysis as well as phylogenetically informed regressions to quantitatively assess the distinction between hibernation and daily torpor and to evaluate the impact of body mass and geographical distribution of species on torpor traits. Cluster analysis clearly confirmed the classical distinction between daily torpor and hibernation. Overall, heterothermic endotherms tend to be small; hibernators are significantly heavier than daily heterotherms and also are distributed at higher average latitudes (∼35°) than daily heterotherms (∼25°). Variables of torpor for an average 30 g heterotherm differed significantly between daily heterotherms and hibernators. Average maximum torpor bout duration was >30-fold longer, and mean torpor bout duration >25-fold longer in hibernators. Mean minimum body temperature differed by ∼13°C, and the mean minimum torpor metabolic rate was ∼35% of the basal metabolic rate (BMR) in daily heterotherms but only 6% of BMR in hibernators. Consequently, our analysis strongly supports the view that hibernators and daily heterotherms are functionally distinct groups that probably have been subject to disruptive selection. Arguably, the primary physiological difference between daily torpor and hibernation, which leads to a variety of derived further distinct characteristics, is the temporal control of entry into and arousal from torpor, which is governed by the circadian clock in daily heterotherms, but apparently not in hibernators.

Dataset Information

The limits to population density in birds and mammals.

Publications

The limits to population density in birds and mammals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets