Back

Macroecological variation in movement profiles: body size does not explain it all

Straus, S.; Forbes, C.; Little, C. J.; Germain, R. M.; Main, D. A.; O'Connor, M. I.; Thompson, P. L.; Ford, A. T.; Gravel, D.; Guzman, L. M.

2022-04-22 ecology
10.1101/2022.04.21.489049 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Animals couple habitats by three types of movement: dispersal, migration, and foraging, which dynamically link populations, communities, and ecosystems. Spatial distances of movement tend to correlate with each other, reflecting shared allometric scaling with body size, but may diverge due to biomechanical, phylogenetic, and ecological constraints. While these constraints have been investigated within specific taxa, the macroecological and macroevolutionary constraints on movement distances, and causes of those constraints, are still unknown. Here, we synthesized distances of all three movement types across 300+ vertebrate species, and investigated how the relationships between movement types and body size were modified by movement medium, taxonomy, and trophic guild (carnivore, herbivore, etc.). We found that the strength of relationships between movement types and body size varied among environments, taxa, and trophic guilds. Movement profiles interacted with physiological, taxonomic, and ecological traits to depart from expected body mass scaling. Overall, we find that there are systematic patterns to movement distances, and that movement types with very distinct ecological consequences (foraging, migration) can be correlated and subject to similar constraints. This implies that the scales of population dynamics in ecological communities are not entirely determined by the environment and likely reflect general biomechanical, evolutionary and metabolic constraints.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.