4.8 Article

Size increase in high elevation ground squirrels over the last century

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 1499-1508

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02644.x

关键词

body size; California; Callospermophilus lateralis; climate change; ground squirrels; Otospermophilus beecheyi; Sierra Nevada; Urocitellus beldingi

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB 0640859]
  2. National Parks Service
  3. Yosemite Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increasing evidence for morphological change in response to recent environmental change, but how this relates to fluctuations in geographic range remains unclear. We measured museum specimens from two time periods (19021950 and 20002008) that vary significantly in climate to assess if and how two high elevation contracting species of ground squirrels in the Sierra Nevada of California, Belding's ground squirrel (Urocitellus beldingi) and the golden-mantled ground squirrel (Callospermophilus lateralis), and one lower elevation, stable species, the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), have responded morphologically to changes over the last century. We measured skull length (condylobasal length), an ontogenetically more labile trait highly correlated with body size, and maxillary toothrow length, a more developmentally constrained trait predictive of skull shape. C. lateralis and U. beldingi, both obligate hibernators, have increased in body size, but have not changed in shape. In contrast, O. beecheyi, which only hibernates in parts of its range, has shown no significant change in either morphometric trait. The increase in body size in the higher elevation species, hypothesized to be a plastic effect due to a longer growing season and thus prolonged food availability, opposes the expected direction of selection for decreased body size under chronic warming. Our study supports that population contraction is related to physiological rather than nutritional constraints.

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