4.8 Article

Allometry reveals trade-offs between Bergmann's and Allen's rules, and different avian adaptive strategies for thermoregulation

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-36676-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Animals in warm climates tend to decrease in body size and elongate appendages. This study shows that the relative length of unfeathered appendages varies with temperature depending on body size. Body size, beak length, and tarsus length interact to predict the species' environmental temperature. These findings suggest that body size and shape are products of thermoregulatory adaptations.
Animals tend to decrease in body size (Bergmann's rule) and elongate appendages (Allen's rule) in warm climates. However, it is unknown whether these patterns depend on each other or constitute independent responses to the thermal environment. Here, based on a global phylogenetic comparative analysis across 99.7% of the world's bird species, we show that the way in which the relative length of unfeathered appendages co-varies with temperature depends on body size and vice versa. First, the larger the body, the greater the increase in beak length with temperature. Second, the temperature-based increase in tarsus length is apparent only in larger birds, whereas in smaller birds, tarsus length decreases with temperature. Third, body size and the length of beak and tarsus interact with each other to predict the species' environmental temperature. These findings suggest that the animals' body size and shape are products of an evolutionary compromise that reflects distinct alternative thermoregulatory adaptations. Bergmann's and Allen's rules are speculated to describe alternative strategies of thermal adaptation. Here, Frohlich et al. explore global variation across avian species to show that the way in which relative length of beaks and tarsi co-vary with ambient temperature depends on body mass and vice versa.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据