Eur. J. Entomol. 104 (4): 769-776, 2007 | DOI: 10.14411/eje.2007.098

Body weight distributions of central European Coleoptera

Werner ULRICH
Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Department of Animal Ecology, Gagarina 9, 87-100 Toruń; Poland;

Species number - body weight distributions are generally thought to be skewed to the right. While this pattern is well documented in vertebrates, comparative studies on species rich invertebrate taxa are still scarce. Here I show that the weight distributions of central European Coleoptera (based on 8257 species body weight data compiled from Freude et al., 1964-1994) are predominantly right skewed. Skewness and species richness per taxon were positively correlated. The number of modes of the body weight distributions was negatively correlated with species richness. 273 of the 558 genera had bimodal distributions. Species richness per genus did not significantly depend on mean genus body weight. In general the coleopteran size distributions differed from those of European Hymenoptera but were similar to the respective distributions of vertebrates. I conclude that we should be cautious when generalizing patterns found in one taxon.

Keywords: Beetles, body weight, size ratios, speciation

Received: October 18, 2006; Revised: April 11, 2007; Accepted: April 11, 2007; Published: October 15, 2007  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
ULRICH, W. (2007). Body weight distributions of central European Coleoptera. EJE104(4), 769-776. doi: 10.14411/eje.2007.098
Download citation

References

  1. ALLEN C.R., FORYS E.A. & HOLLING C.S. 1999: Body mass patterns predict invasions and extinctions in transforming landscapes. Ecosystems 2: 114-121 Go to original source...
  2. ALROY J. 2000: Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology 26: 319-329 Go to original source...
  3. BAKKER V.J. & KELT D.A. 2000: Scale-dependent patterns in body size distributions of neotropical mammals. Ecology 81: 3530-3547 Go to original source...
  4. BASSET Y. & KITCHING R.L. 1991: Species number, species abundance, and body length of arboreal arthropods associated with an Australian rainforest tree. Ecol. Entomol. 16: 391-402 Go to original source...
  5. BROWN J.H. 1995: Macroecology. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 270 pp
  6. BROWN J.H., MARQUET P.A. & TAPER M.L. 1993: Spatial scaling of species composition: body masses of North American land mammals. Am. Nat. 142: 573-584 Go to original source...
  7. CALDER W.A. 1984: Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 431 pp
  8. CHISLENKO L.L. 1981: Structure of Fauna and Flora in Connection with Organism Size. Moscow University Press, Moscow
  9. DIAL K.P. & MARZLUFF J.M. 1988: Are the smallest organisms the most diverse? Ecology 69: 1620-1624 Go to original source...
  10. ESPADALER X. & GOMEZ C. 2002: The species body-size distribution in Iberian ants is parameter dependent. Vie Milieu 52: 103-107
  11. ETIENNE R.S. & OLFF H. 2004: How dispersal limitation shapes species - body size distributions in local communities. Am. Nat. 163: 69-83 Go to original source...
  12. FREUDE H., HARDE K.W. & LOHSE G.A. 1964- 1994: Die Kaefer Mitteleuropas. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld
  13. GANIHAR S.R. 1997: Biomass estimates of terrestrial arthropods based on body length. J. Biosciences 22: 219-224 Go to original source...
  14. GASTON K.J. & BLACKBURN T.M. 2000: Pattern and Process in Macroecology. Blackwell, Oxford, 377 pp Go to original source...
  15. GOTELLI N.J. & GRAVES G.R. 1996: Null Models in Ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, xvi + 368 pp
  16. GUNNARSSON B. 1990: Vegetation structure and the abundance and size distribution of spruce-living spiders. J. Anim. Ecol. 59: 743-752 Go to original source...
  17. HAVLICEK T.D. & CARPENTER S.R. 2001: Pelagic species size distributions in lakes: are they discontinuous? Limnol. Oceanogr. 46: 1021-1033 Go to original source...
  18. HUTCHINSON G.E. & MACARTHUR R.H. 1959: A theoretical ecological model of size distributions among species of animals. Am. Nat. 93: 117-125 Go to original source...
  19. KNOUFT J.H. & PAGE L.M. 2003: The evolution of body size in extant groups of North American freshwater fishes: speciation, size distributions, and Cope's rule. Am. Nat. 161: 413-421 Go to original source...
  20. KOZLOWSKI J. & GAWELCZYK A.T. 2002: Why are species' body size distributions usually skewed to the right? Funct. Ecol. 16: 419-432 Go to original source...
  21. KOZLOWSKI J. & WEINER J. 1997: Interspecific allometries are byproducts of body size optimization. Am. Nat. 149: 352-380 Go to original source...
  22. MAURER B.A., BROWN J.H. & RUSLER R.D. 1992: The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evolution 46: 939-953 Go to original source...
  23. MAY R.M. 1986: The search for patterns in the balance of nature: advances and retreats. Ecology 67: 1115-1126 Go to original source...
  24. MCKINNEY M.L. 1990: Trends in body size evolution. In McNamara K.C. (ed.): Evolutionary Trends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 75-118
  25. MORSE D.R., LAWTON J.H., DODSON M.M. & WILLIAMSON M.H. 1985: Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body lengths. Nature 314: 731-733 Go to original source...
  26. NOVOTNY V. & KINDLMANN P. 1996: Distribution of body sizes in arthropod taxa and communities. Oikos 75: 75-82 Go to original source...
  27. ORME C.D.L., QUICKE D.L.J., COOK J.M. & PURVIS A. 2002: Body size does not predict species richness among the metazoan. J. Evol. Biol. 15: 235-247 Go to original source...
  28. PETERS R.H. 1983: The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, xii + 329 pp Go to original source...
  29. REITTER E. 1908- 1916: Die Kaefer des Deutschen Reiches. Lutz, Stuttgart
  30. SCHMIDT-NIELSEN K. 1984: Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 241 pp Go to original source...
  31. SILVERMANN B.W. 1986: Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall, New York, 175 pp
  32. SMITH F.A., BROWN J.H., HASKELL J.P., LYONS S.K., ALROY J., CHARNOV E.L., DAYAN T., ENQUIST B.J., ERNEST S.K.M., HADLY E.A., JONES K.E., KAUFMAN D.M., MARQUET P.A., MAURER B.A., NIKLAS K.J., PORTER W.P., TIFFNEY B. & WILLIG M.R. 2004: Similarity of mammalian body size across the taxonomic hierarchy and across space and time. Am. Nat. 163: 672-691 Go to original source...
  33. STATSOFT INC. 2005: STATISTICA. Data Analysis Software System), version 7.1. - www.statsoft.com
  34. STRONG D.R., SZYSKA L.A. & SIMBERLOFF D.S. 1979: Tests of community wide character displacement against null hypotheses. Evolution 33: 897-913 Go to original source...
  35. TABACHNICK B.G. & FIDELL L.S. 1996: Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. Harper Collins, New York, 880 pp
  36. TAYLOR L.R. 1960: Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 332: 721-722. Go to original source...
  37. ULRICH W. 2005: Die Hymenopteren einer Wiese auf Kalkgestein: Okologische Muster einer lokalen Tiergemeinschaft. Berichte des Forschungszentrums WaldGkosysteme A 195, 203 pp
  38. ULRICH W. 2006: Body size distribution of European Hymenoptera. Oikos 114: 518-528 Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.