Niche breadth explains the range size of European-centred butterflies, but dispersal ability does not.

Johannes Hausharter, Sonia Rashid, Johannes Wessely, Patrick Strutzenberger, Dietmar Moser, Andreas Gattringer, Konrad Fiedler, Karl Hülber, Stefan Dullinger
Author Information
  1. Johannes Hausharter: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  2. Sonia Rashid: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  3. Johannes Wessely: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  4. Patrick Strutzenberger: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  5. Dietmar Moser: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  6. Andreas Gattringer: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  7. Konrad Fiedler: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  8. Karl Hülber: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID
  9. Stefan Dullinger: Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria. ORCID

Abstract

Aim: The breadth of ecological niches and dispersal abilities have long been discussed as important determinants of species' range sizes. However, studies directly comparing the relative effects of both factors are rare, taxonomically biased and revealed inconsistent results.
Location: Europe.
Time Period: Cenozoic.
Major Taxa: Butterflies, Lepidoptera.
Methods: We relate climate, diet and habitat niche breadth and two indicators of dispersal ability, wingspan and a dispersal tendency index, to the global range size of 369 European-centred butterfly species. The relative effects of these five predictors and their variation across the butterfly phylogeny were assessed by means of phylogenetic generalized least squares models and phylogenetically weighted regressions respectively.
Results: Climate niche breadth was the most important single predictor, followed by habitat and diet niche breadth, while dispersal tendency and wingspan showed no relation to species' range size. All predictors together explained 59% of the variation in butterfly range size. However, the effects of each predictor varied considerably across families and genera.
Main Conclusions: Range sizes of European-centred butterflies are strongly correlated with ecological niche breadth but apparently independent of dispersal ability. The magnitude of range size-niche breadth relationships is not stationary across the phylogeny and is often negatively correlated across the different dimensions of the ecological niche. This variation limits the generalizability of range size-trait relationships across broad taxonomic groups.

Keywords

Associated Data

Dryad | 10.5061/dryad.n8pk0p30x

References

  1. Syst Biol. 2012 Jan;61(1):170-3 [PMID: 21963610]
  2. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Oct 22;269(1505):2163-71 [PMID: 12396492]
  3. Ecol Lett. 2013 Aug;16(8):1104-14 [PMID: 23773417]
  4. Ecol Lett. 2007 Dec;10(12):1115-23 [PMID: 17850335]
  5. Ecol Lett. 2021 Oct;24(10):2134-2145 [PMID: 34297474]
  6. Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Jun;29(6):1695-701 [PMID: 22319168]
  7. J Evol Biol. 2012 Mar;25(3):532-46 [PMID: 22268676]
  8. Am J Bot. 2018 Mar;105(3):302-314 [PMID: 29746720]
  9. Glob Chang Biol. 2021 Aug;27(15):3505-3518 [PMID: 33896082]
  10. Ecol Lett. 2007 Aug;10(8):745-58 [PMID: 17594430]
  11. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Mar 14;377(1846):20210013 [PMID: 35067095]
  12. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2023 Sep;32(9):1535-1548 [PMID: 38505836]
  13. Science. 2012 May 25;336(6084):1028-30 [PMID: 22628653]
  14. Oecologia. 1999 May;119(3):427-434 [PMID: 28307766]
  15. Ecology. 2013 Jul;94(7):1519-30 [PMID: 23951712]
  16. J Biogeogr. 2018 Oct;45(10):2227-2237 [PMID: 31217658]
  17. Syst Biol. 2018 Sep 1;67(5):901-904 [PMID: 29718447]
  18. Science. 2011 Aug 19;333(6045):1024-6 [PMID: 21852500]
  19. Syst Biol. 2019 Mar 1;68(2):234-251 [PMID: 30239975]
  20. Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80 [PMID: 23329690]
  21. Ecol Lett. 2022 Oct;25(10):2303-2323 [PMID: 36001639]
  22. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Apr 8;15(4):e1006650 [PMID: 30958812]
  23. Bioinformatics. 2010 Jun 1;26(11):1463-4 [PMID: 20395285]
  24. J Evol Biol. 2006 Jan;19(1):108-13 [PMID: 16405582]
  25. Ecol Lett. 2011 Jul;14(7):677-89 [PMID: 21535340]
  26. Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):526-528 [PMID: 30016406]
  27. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Aug;21(8):415-6 [PMID: 16757062]
  28. Evolution. 2010 Apr 1;64(4):1098-119 [PMID: 19895553]
  29. New Phytol. 2015 Jul;207(2):437-453 [PMID: 25615647]
  30. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 25;8(11):e80875 [PMID: 24282557]
  31. Sci Data. 2017 Sep 05;4:170122 [PMID: 28872642]
  32. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Aug;85(3):625-42 [PMID: 20055815]
  33. J Anim Ecol. 2012 Jan;81(1):174-84 [PMID: 21988561]
  34. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Oct 7;267(1456):1947-52 [PMID: 11075706]
  35. Am Nat. 2011 Sep;178(3):372-82 [PMID: 21828993]
  36. Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 14;9(1):4526 [PMID: 30872741]
  37. BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Nov 08;7:214 [PMID: 17996036]
  38. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Sep 22;267(1455):1843-50 [PMID: 11052534]
  39. Evolution. 2014 Jan;68(1):105-24 [PMID: 24372598]
  40. Zookeys. 2018 Dec 31;(811):9-45 [PMID: 30627036]
  41. Annu Rev Entomol. 2011;56:143-59 [PMID: 20809802]
  42. Syst Biol. 2019 Sep 1;68(5):797-813 [PMID: 30690622]
  43. Proc Biol Sci. 2022 May 25;289(1975):20220489 [PMID: 35582805]
  44. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2013 Feb;88(1):15-30 [PMID: 22686347]
  45. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020 Jul;4(7):963-969 [PMID: 32424277]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0breadthrangedispersalnichesizeacrossbutterflyecologicaleffectsabilityEuropean-centredvariationimportantspecies'sizesHoweverrelativeLepidopteradiethabitatwingspantendencyspeciespredictorsphylogenyphylogeneticallyregressionspredictorbutterfliescorrelatedrelationshipsAim:nichesabilitieslongdiscusseddeterminantsstudiesdirectlycomparingfactorsraretaxonomicallybiasedrevealedinconsistentresultsLocation:EuropeTimePeriod:CenozoicMajorTaxa:ButterfliesMethods:relateclimatetwoindicatorsindexglobal369fiveassessedmeansphylogeneticgeneralizedleastsquaresmodelsweightedrespectivelyResults:Climatesinglefollowedshowedrelationtogetherexplained59%variedconsiderablyfamiliesgeneraMainConclusions:Rangestronglyapparentlyindependentmagnitudesize-nichestationaryoftennegativelydifferentdimensionslimitsgeneralizabilitysize-traitbroadtaxonomicgroupsNicheexplainsnotEuropean‐centredinformed

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)