4.7 Article

Testing Bergmann's rule in marine copepods

Journal

ECOGRAPHY
Volume 44, Issue 9, Pages 1283-1295

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.05545

Keywords

allometry; chlorophyll; continuous plankton recorder; ectotherms; environmental drivers; invertebrate; macroecology; statistical modelling; temperature-size rule; zooplankton

Funding

  1. DEFRA UK [ME-5308]
  2. NSF USA [OCE-1657887]
  3. DFO CA [F5955-150026/001/HAL]
  4. NERC UK [NC-R8/H12/100]
  5. IMR Norway
  6. NERC [SAH01001] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study provides strong support for Bergmann's rule in marine copepods, showing that temperature is a key factor in determining body size. Other drivers, such as food availability, also play a role in modifying this pattern. Smaller copepod species may benefit as 'winners' in a warming world, potentially impacting fisheries production and carbon sequestration rates.
Macroecological relationships provide insights into rules that govern ecological systems. Bergmann's rule posits that members of the same clade are larger at colder temperatures. Whether temperature drives this relationship is debated because several other potential drivers covary with temperature. We conducted a near-global comparative analysis on marine copepods (97 830 samples, 388 taxa) to test Bergmann's rule, considering other potential drivers. Supporting Bergmann's rule, we found temperature better predicted size than did latitude or oxygen, with body size decreasing by 43.9% across the temperature range (-1.7 to 30oC). Body size also decreased by 26.9% across the range in food availability. Our results provide strong support for Bergman's rule in copepods, but emphasises the importance of other drivers in modifying this pattern. As the world warms, smaller copepod species are likely to emerge as 'winners', potentially reducing rates of fisheries production and carbon sequestration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available