Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Mass Relationships (mass + relationships)
Selected AbstractsDO FEMALE SPIDERS SELECT HEAVIER MALES FOR THE GENES FOR BEHAVIORAL AGGRESSIVENESS THEY OFFER THEIR OFFSPRING?EVOLUTION, Issue 6 2003S. E. RIECHERT Abstract., We explore the hypothesis that females choose to mate with heavier males for the genes for behavioral aggressiveness they offer their offspring in the desert spider, Agelenopsis aperta. Behavioral aggressiveness is important to competition for limited resources in the field and is thus correlated with the mass spiders achieve. We established four crosses based on the body mass relationships of parents subjected to selection in their natural environment (female mass/male mass: HI/HI, HI/LO, LO/HI, and LO/LO) and reared the F1 offspring in a noncompetitive laboratory environment. Offspring size and mass at maturity were measured, life history parameters recorded, and behavioral aggressiveness scored in a series of tests. Significant familial effects were detected in all of these measures, but pertinent cross effects were observed only in the assays measuring behavioral aggressiveness. The results were summarized in terms of the fitness costs to HI females of mating with LO males (fewer female offspring of the more aggressive phenotypes) and the benefits to LO females of mating with HI males (fewer fearful offspring of both sexes). [source] Does size matter for dispersal distance?GLOBAL ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2007David G. Jenkins ABSTRACT Aim, The aim of this study is to answer the questions: (1) do small organisms disperse farther than large, or vice versa; and (2) does the observed pattern differ for passive and active dispersers? These questions are central to several themes in biogeography (including microbial biogeography), macroecology, metacommunity ecology and conservation biology. Location, The meta-analysis was conducted using published data collected worldwide. Methods, We collected and analysed 795 data values in the peer-reviewed literature for direct observations of both maximal dispersal distance and mass of the dispersing organisms (e.g. seeds, not trees). Analysed taxa ranged in size from bacteria to whales. We applied macroecology analyses based on null models (using Monte Carlo randomizations) to test patterns relative to specific hypotheses. Results, Collected dispersal distance and mass data spanned 9 and 21 orders of magnitude, respectively. Active dispersers dispersed significantly farther (P < 0.001) and were significantly greater in mass (P < 0.001) than passive dispersers. Overall, size matters: larger active dispersers attained greater maximum observed dispersal distances than smaller active dispersers. In contrast, passive-disperser distances were random with respect to propagule mass, but not uniformly random, in part due to sparse data available for tiny propagules. Conclusions, Size is important to maximal dispersal distance for active dispersers, but not for passive dispersers. Claims that microbes disperse widely cannot be tested by current data based on direct observations of dispersal: indirect approaches will need to be applied. Distance,mass relationships should contribute to a resolution of neutral and niche-based metacommunity theories by helping scale expectations for dispersal limitation. Also, distance,mass relationships should inform analyses of latitudinal species richness and conservation biology topics such as fragmentation, umbrella species and taxonomic homogenization. [source] Measurement of body size and abundance in tests of macroecological and food web theoryJOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, Issue 1 2007SIMON JENNINGS Summary 1Mean body mass (W) and mean numerical (N) or biomass (B) abundance are frequently used as variables to describe populations and species in macroecological and food web studies. 2We investigate how the use of mean W and mean N or B, rather than other measures of W and/or accounting for the properties of all individuals, can affect the outcome of tests of macroecological and food web theory. 3Theoretical and empirical analyses demonstrate that mean W, W at maximum biomass (Wmb), W when energy requirements are greatest (Wme) and the W when a species uses the greatest proportion of the energy available to all species in a W class (Wmpe) are not consistently related. 4For a population at equilibrium, relationships between mean W and Wme depend on the slope b of the relationship between trophic level and W. For marine fishes, data show that b varies widely among species and thus mean W is an unreliable indicator of the role of a species in the food web. 5Two different approaches, ,cross-species' and ,all individuals' have been used to estimate slopes of abundance,body mass relationships and to test the energetic equivalence hypothesis and related theory. The approaches, based on relationships between (1) log10 mean W and log10 mean N or B, and (2) log10 W and log10 N or B of all individuals binned into log10 W classes (size spectra), give different slopes and confidence intervals with the same data. 6Our results show that the ,all individuals' approach has the potential to provide more powerful tests of the energetic equivalence hypothesis and role of energy availability in determining slopes, but new theory and empirical analysis are needed to explain distributions of species relative abundance at W. 7Biases introduced when working with mean W in macroecological and food web studies are greatest when species have indeterminate growth, when relationships between W and trophic level are strong and when the range of species'W is narrow. [source] Abundance,body mass relationships among insects along a latitudinal gradientAUSTRAL ECOLOGY, Issue 3 2008NIGEL R. ANDREW Abstract We investigated the relationship between abundance and body size (body mass) of 162 insect herbivore species on the host plant Acacia falcata along its entire coastal latitudinal distribution (eastern Australia), spanning a gradient in mean annual temperature of 4.3°C. We extend previous research by assessing these relationships at different spatial scales (latitudes pooled, among latitudes and within latitudes) and at different taxonomic levels (insect phytophages pooled, phytophagous Coleoptera and Hemiptera, and five component suborders/superfamilies). Insect species were collected from two orders (Hemiptera and Coleoptera) and five component suborders/superfamilies. There were no consistent trends in the relationships (linear or polygonal/hump-shaped) between abundance and body mass when latitudes were pooled, among latitudes, or when phytophagous insect species were separated into their component suborder/superfamily groups. The reason for the lack of consistent trends might be due to the insect herbivores not fully exploiting their host plant and the relative absence of competition among herbivore species for food resources. This is further assessed in relation to the lack of a consistent pattern in species richness of Coleoptera and Hemiptera herbivores from the same dataset and rates of chewing and sap-sucking herbivory along the same latitudinal gradient. Future studies of abundance,body size relationships are discussed in relation to sampling across environmental gradients and accounting for the influence of host plant identity and insect phylogeny. [source] | ||||||||||