Range size patterns of New World oscine passerines (Aves): insights from differences among migratory and sedentary clades
Article first published online: 21 JUN 2013
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Journal of Biogeography
Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 2261–2273, December 2013
How to Cite
Morales-Castilla, I., Rodríguez, M. Á., Kaur, R., Hawkins, B. A. (2013), Range size patterns of New World oscine passerines (Aves): insights from differences among migratory and sedentary clades. Journal of Biogeography, 40: 2261–2273. doi: 10.1111/jbi.12159
- Issue published online: 20 NOV 2013
- Article first published online: 21 JUN 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 13 MAY 2013
- Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. Grant Number: BES-2007-16314
- Integrated Program of IC&DT. Grant Number: 1/SAESCTN/ALENT-07-0224-FEDER-001755
- Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain. Grant Number: CGL2010-22119
- eigenvector analysis;
- evolution of migration;
- migratory species;
- niche conservatism;
- oscine passerines;
- phylogenetic eigenvector regression;
- range size variation;
- Rapoport's rule
To quantify the contributions of environment, phylogeny and geography to variation in the breeding and non-breeding geographical range sizes of oscine passerines.
Breeding range sizes were estimated for 420 species, and non-breeding ranges were estimated for 122 migratory species. Phylogenetic, environmental and geographical (spatial) eigenvectors were used to partition cross-species variation in range size. The strengths of environmental and phylogenetic signals were quantified and compared among all species, and between migratory and sedentary oscines.
Phylogenetic, environmental and geographical structure explained most of the variation in range size, accounting for 95% of the variation in breeding range sizes of migratory birds. The three components overlapped extensively, with most variation explained by differences in environmental niches. Models for breeding ranges of migratory species contained the strongest phylogenetic, environmental and geographical signals at the species level. In contrast, models for non-breeding ranges of migratory species contained the weakest phylogenetic and environmental signals (5.7% and 65.2% of variance explained, respectively). The phylogenetic signal was consistently stronger for migratory breeding ranges than for the other groups.
Oscine range sizes contain a low to moderate phylogenetic signal that overlaps with environmental and geographical associations. The significance of phylogenetic signal suggests that the evolution of range size is not entirely labile, which is probably a result of the non-labile evolution of associated traits. Environmental, geographical and phylogenetic variables can account for most of the variance in species-level range size, with qualitatively similar patterns for migratory and sedentary species. Nonetheless, the stronger environmental and phylogenetic signals in the breeding ranges of migratory species may reflect both that migration is a phylogenetically conserved trait and that the subset of species able to breed in ‘recently’ deglaciated regions is more severely constrained by macroclimatic filtering.