Búsqueda de patrones en macroecología: la regla de Rapoport
Resumen
El efecto Rapoport propone que el tamaño de las áreas geográficas de las especies aumenta con la latitud, la altitud o la profundidad. En este trabajo, reviso la bibliografía sobre las diversas técnicas para describir este patrón y discuto tres aspectos analíticos que son cruciales para probarlo más rigurosamente: (1) la detección de artefactos metodológicos, (2) la aplicación de modelos nulos en biogeografía y (3) la aplicación del método filogenético comparativo. A partir de datos de distribución geográfica de 100 especies de tortugas americanas, muestro prácticamente la sensibilidad de los resultados a los distintos métodos de análisis. El estudio muestra el cambio de los enfoques metodológicos desde mediados de los ’90 que resultó en técnicas cada vez más complejas para analizar gradientes geográficos en el tamaño de los rangos geográficos de las especies.La aplicación simultánea de varios enfoques de análisis permite convalidar aquellas tendencias que surgen repetidamente y lleva a sospechar de aquellos “patrones” que aparecen sólo cuando se aplica una determinada metodología. Actualmente, no se considera al efecto Rapoport como una regla general verificada en la naturaleza, sino como una hipótesis que se pone a prueba, como un primer paso, al tratar de elucidar los mecanismos que explican la variaciones en el tamaño de los rangos geográficos de las especies. El trabajo incluye, además, una serie de ejercicios prácticos y preguntas para estudiantes de grado y post-grado.
Citas
Arroyo, K.M.T., M.Riveros, A.Peñaloza, L.Cavieres y A.M.Faggi. 1996. Phytogeographic relationships and regional richness patterns of the cooltemperate rainforest flora of southernSouth America. Pp. 134-172. En: Lawford, R.G.,P.B. Alaback y E.Fuentes (eds.) High-latitude rainforests and associated ecosystems of the west coast of Americas. Spring-Verlag, New York.
Auerbach, M. y A.Shmida.1987.Spatial scale and determinants of plant species richness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2:238-242.
Blackburn, T. M. y K.J. Gaston. 1996. Spatial patterns in the geographic ranges of bird species in the New World.Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety, London, B351:897-912.
Blackburn, T.M. y K.J. Gaston. 1998.Some methodologicalissuesin macroecology. The American Naturalist 151:68-83.
Brown, J.H. 1995. Macroecology. The University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. 269 pp.
Brown,J. H. yB.A. Maurer.1989. Macroecology:the division offood and space among species on continents. Science 243:1145-1150.
Burt, A. 1989. Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Pp. 33-54. En: Harvey, P.H. y L.Partridge (eds.). Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cheverud, J., M. Dow y W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic restraints in comparative analyses:sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 36:914-933.
Colwell, R.K. y G.C. Hurtt. 1994. Nonbiological gradients in species richness and a spurius Rapoport effect. The American Naturalist 144:570-595.
Cowlishaw, G. y J.E. Hacker. 1997. Distribution, diversity, and latitude in African primates. The American Naturalist 150:505-512.
Cowlishaw, G. y J.E. Hacker. 1998. Too much latitude for Rapoport’s-rule? Trendsin Ecol. and Evol. 13:241.
Crowley, P.H. 1992. Resampling methods for computation-intensive data analysis in ecology and evolution. AnnualReview in Ecology andSystematics 23:405-447.
Diamond, J. 1986. Overview: Laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. Pp 3-22. En: Diamond, J. y T.J. Case (eds.) Community Ecology. Harper and Row, New York.
Edwards,P.J.,R.M.May yN.R.Webb. 1994.Large-scale ecology and conservation biology.BlackwellScientific Publications, Oxford. 375 pp.
Eggleton, P. y R. Vane-Wright. 1994. Phylogenetics and ecology. The Linnean Society simposium Series, Number 17. AcademicPress, London. 376 pp.
Felsenstein,J. 1985.Phylogenies and the comparative method. The American Naturalist 125:1-15.
France,R. 1992.TheNorthAmerican latitudinal gradientin speciesrichness and geographicalrange offreshwater crayfish and amphipods. The American Naturalist 139:342-354.
Garland,T.Jr.,P.H.Harvey yA.R.Ives. 1992.Proceduresforthe analysis of comparative data using independent contrasts.Systematic Biology 41:18-32.
Gaston, K.J. 1991. How large is a species’ geographic range? Oikos 61:434-438.
Gaston, K.J. 1994a. Rarity. Chapman y Hall, London. 205 pp.
Gaston, K.J. 1994b. Measuring geograhic range sizes. Ecography 17:198-205.
Gaston, K.J. 1996. Species-range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms, and implications. Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 11:197-201.
Gaston, K.J., T.M. Blackburn y J.I. Spicer.1998a. Rapoport’s rule: time for an epitaph? Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 13:70-74.
Gaston, K.J., T.M.Blackburn y J.I.Spicer. 1998b.Reply to G.Cowlishaw and J.E. Hacker. Trendsin Ecol. and Evol. 13:242.
Gittleman, J.L. y M. Kot. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Systematic Zoology 39:227-241.
Gittleman, J.L. y H.-K. Luh. 1992. On comparing comparative methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:383-404.
Gittleman, J.L. y H.-K. Luh. 1994. Phylogeny, evolutionary models and comparative methods: a simulation study. Pp. 103-122. En: Eggleton, P. y R. Vane-Wright (eds.) Phylogenetics and Ecology. The Linnean SocietySimposium Series, Number 17. AcademicPress, London.
Graves, G.R. 1985. Elevational correlates of speciation and intraspecific geographic variation in plumage in Andean forest birds. Auk 102:556-579.
Harvey,P.H. y M.Pagel. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. 239 pp.
Hughes, L., E.M. Cawsey y M. Westoby. 1996. Geographic and climatic range sizes of Australian eucalypts and a test of Rapoport’s rule. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5:128-142.
Hurlbert,S.H. 1984.Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological fiel experiments. Ecological Monographs 54:187-211.
Iverson, J.B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the World. Privately printed, Richmond Indiana. 363 pp.
Lawton, J. H. 1996. Patterns in ecology. Oikos 75:145-147.
Lawton,J.H.,S,. Nee, A.J. Letcher yP.H. Harvey. 1994. Animal distributions: patterns and processes.Pp. 41- 58. En: P.J. Edwards, R.M. May y N.R. Webb (eds.) Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. The British EcologicalSociety by BlackwellScience, Oxford. 375 pp.
Letcher, A.J. yP.H. Harvey. 1994.Variation in geographical range size among mammals of thePalearctic. The American Naturalist 144:30-42.
Levin, R. 1989. Biologists disagree over bold signature of nature.Science 244:527-528.
Lyons, S.K. y M.R. Willig. 1997. Latitudinal patterns of range size: methodological concerns and empirical evaluationsfor New World bats and marsupials. Oikos 79:568-580.
MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical Ecology. Harper y Row, New York. 269 pp.
Martins, E.P. 1996.Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. 415 pp.
Mourelle,C. y E. Ezcurra. 1997.Rapoport’sRule: A comparative analysis betweenSouth and North American columnar cacti. The American Naturalist 150:131-142.
Patterson, B.D., V.Pacheco yS.Solari. 1996. Distributions of bats along an elevational gradientin the Andes of south-eastern Peru. Journal of Zoology, London 240:637-658.
Pagel, M.D., R.M. May y A.R. Collie. 1991. Ecological aspects of the geographical distribution and diversity of mammalian species. The American Naturalist 137:791-815.
Peters, R.H. 1991. A critique for ecology. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. 366 pp.
Pianka, E.R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. The American Naturalist 100:33-46.
Platnick, N.I. 1991.Patterns of biodiversity:tropical vs.temperate.Journal of Natural History 25:1083-1088.
Purvis, A., J.L. Gittleman y H.-K. Luh. 1994. Truth or consequences: accuracy of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. Journal of Theoretical Biology 167:293-300.
Purvis, A. y A. Rambaut. 1994. Comparative Analysis by Independent Contrasts (CAIC), version 2. Oxford University. 26 pp.
Purvis A., y A. Rambaut. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts(LAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data.Computer Applicationsin theBiosciences 11:247-251.
Rahbek, C. 1997. The relationship among area, elevation, and regional species richness in neotropical birds. The American Naturalist 149:875-902.
Rapoport,E.H. 1975.Areografía.Estrategias geográficas de las especies.Fondo deCulturaEconómica,México. 214 pp.
Rapoport,E.H. 1982.Areography.Geographical strategies of species. The Fundación Bariloche Series. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 269 pp.
Ricklefs, R.E. y D.Schluter. 1993.Species diversity in ecological communities. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. 414 pp.
Rohde, K. 1992. Latitudinal gradientsin species diversity: the search forthe primary cause. Oikos 65:514-527.
Rohde, K. 1996. Rapoport’s rule is a local phenomenon and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Biodiversity Letters 3:10-13.
Rohde, K., M. Heap y D. Heap. 1993. Rapoport’s rule does not apply to marine teleosts and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species richness. The American Naturalist 142:1-16.
Rohde, K. y M. Heap. 1996. Latitudinal ranges of teleost fish in the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans. The American Naturalist 147:659-665.
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995.Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 436 pp.
Roy K., D.Jablonski y J.W. Valentine. 1994. EasternPacific molluscan provinces and latitudinal diversity gradient: no evidence for “Rapoport’s Rule”.Proceedings of the National Academic ofScience, USA 91:8871-8874.
Ruggiero, A. 1994. Latitudinal correlates of the sizes of mammalian geograhical rangesinSouth America. Journal of Biogeography 21:545-559.
Ruggiero, A. y J.H. Lawton. 1998. Are there latitudinal and altitudinal Rapoport effects in the geographic ranges of Andean passerines birds? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 63:283-304.
Smith, F.D.M., R.M. May y P.H. Harvey. 1994. Geographical ranges of Australian mammals. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:441-450.
Stevens, G.C. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. The American Naturalist 133:240-256.
Stevens, G.C. 1992a. The elevational gradientin altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal rule to altitude. The American Naturalist 140:893-911.
Stevens, G.C. 1992b.Spilling over the competitive limits to species coexistence. Pp. 40-58. En: Elredge, N. (ed.). Systematics, Ecology and the Biodiversity Crisis. Columbia University Press, New York.
Stevens, G.C. 1996. Extending Rapoport’srule toPacific marine fishes.Journal of Biogeography 23:149- 154.
Auerbach, M. y A.Shmida.1987.Spatial scale and determinants of plant species richness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2:238-242.
Blackburn, T. M. y K.J. Gaston. 1996. Spatial patterns in the geographic ranges of bird species in the New World.Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety, London, B351:897-912.
Blackburn, T.M. y K.J. Gaston. 1998.Some methodologicalissuesin macroecology. The American Naturalist 151:68-83.
Brown, J.H. 1995. Macroecology. The University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. 269 pp.
Brown,J. H. yB.A. Maurer.1989. Macroecology:the division offood and space among species on continents. Science 243:1145-1150.
Burt, A. 1989. Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Pp. 33-54. En: Harvey, P.H. y L.Partridge (eds.). Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cheverud, J., M. Dow y W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic restraints in comparative analyses:sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 36:914-933.
Colwell, R.K. y G.C. Hurtt. 1994. Nonbiological gradients in species richness and a spurius Rapoport effect. The American Naturalist 144:570-595.
Cowlishaw, G. y J.E. Hacker. 1997. Distribution, diversity, and latitude in African primates. The American Naturalist 150:505-512.
Cowlishaw, G. y J.E. Hacker. 1998. Too much latitude for Rapoport’s-rule? Trendsin Ecol. and Evol. 13:241.
Crowley, P.H. 1992. Resampling methods for computation-intensive data analysis in ecology and evolution. AnnualReview in Ecology andSystematics 23:405-447.
Diamond, J. 1986. Overview: Laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. Pp 3-22. En: Diamond, J. y T.J. Case (eds.) Community Ecology. Harper and Row, New York.
Edwards,P.J.,R.M.May yN.R.Webb. 1994.Large-scale ecology and conservation biology.BlackwellScientific Publications, Oxford. 375 pp.
Eggleton, P. y R. Vane-Wright. 1994. Phylogenetics and ecology. The Linnean Society simposium Series, Number 17. AcademicPress, London. 376 pp.
Felsenstein,J. 1985.Phylogenies and the comparative method. The American Naturalist 125:1-15.
France,R. 1992.TheNorthAmerican latitudinal gradientin speciesrichness and geographicalrange offreshwater crayfish and amphipods. The American Naturalist 139:342-354.
Garland,T.Jr.,P.H.Harvey yA.R.Ives. 1992.Proceduresforthe analysis of comparative data using independent contrasts.Systematic Biology 41:18-32.
Gaston, K.J. 1991. How large is a species’ geographic range? Oikos 61:434-438.
Gaston, K.J. 1994a. Rarity. Chapman y Hall, London. 205 pp.
Gaston, K.J. 1994b. Measuring geograhic range sizes. Ecography 17:198-205.
Gaston, K.J. 1996. Species-range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms, and implications. Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 11:197-201.
Gaston, K.J., T.M. Blackburn y J.I. Spicer.1998a. Rapoport’s rule: time for an epitaph? Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 13:70-74.
Gaston, K.J., T.M.Blackburn y J.I.Spicer. 1998b.Reply to G.Cowlishaw and J.E. Hacker. Trendsin Ecol. and Evol. 13:242.
Gittleman, J.L. y M. Kot. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Systematic Zoology 39:227-241.
Gittleman, J.L. y H.-K. Luh. 1992. On comparing comparative methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:383-404.
Gittleman, J.L. y H.-K. Luh. 1994. Phylogeny, evolutionary models and comparative methods: a simulation study. Pp. 103-122. En: Eggleton, P. y R. Vane-Wright (eds.) Phylogenetics and Ecology. The Linnean SocietySimposium Series, Number 17. AcademicPress, London.
Graves, G.R. 1985. Elevational correlates of speciation and intraspecific geographic variation in plumage in Andean forest birds. Auk 102:556-579.
Harvey,P.H. y M.Pagel. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. 239 pp.
Hughes, L., E.M. Cawsey y M. Westoby. 1996. Geographic and climatic range sizes of Australian eucalypts and a test of Rapoport’s rule. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5:128-142.
Hurlbert,S.H. 1984.Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological fiel experiments. Ecological Monographs 54:187-211.
Iverson, J.B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the World. Privately printed, Richmond Indiana. 363 pp.
Lawton, J. H. 1996. Patterns in ecology. Oikos 75:145-147.
Lawton,J.H.,S,. Nee, A.J. Letcher yP.H. Harvey. 1994. Animal distributions: patterns and processes.Pp. 41- 58. En: P.J. Edwards, R.M. May y N.R. Webb (eds.) Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. The British EcologicalSociety by BlackwellScience, Oxford. 375 pp.
Letcher, A.J. yP.H. Harvey. 1994.Variation in geographical range size among mammals of thePalearctic. The American Naturalist 144:30-42.
Levin, R. 1989. Biologists disagree over bold signature of nature.Science 244:527-528.
Lyons, S.K. y M.R. Willig. 1997. Latitudinal patterns of range size: methodological concerns and empirical evaluationsfor New World bats and marsupials. Oikos 79:568-580.
MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical Ecology. Harper y Row, New York. 269 pp.
Martins, E.P. 1996.Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford. 415 pp.
Mourelle,C. y E. Ezcurra. 1997.Rapoport’sRule: A comparative analysis betweenSouth and North American columnar cacti. The American Naturalist 150:131-142.
Patterson, B.D., V.Pacheco yS.Solari. 1996. Distributions of bats along an elevational gradientin the Andes of south-eastern Peru. Journal of Zoology, London 240:637-658.
Pagel, M.D., R.M. May y A.R. Collie. 1991. Ecological aspects of the geographical distribution and diversity of mammalian species. The American Naturalist 137:791-815.
Peters, R.H. 1991. A critique for ecology. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge. 366 pp.
Pianka, E.R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. The American Naturalist 100:33-46.
Platnick, N.I. 1991.Patterns of biodiversity:tropical vs.temperate.Journal of Natural History 25:1083-1088.
Purvis, A., J.L. Gittleman y H.-K. Luh. 1994. Truth or consequences: accuracy of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. Journal of Theoretical Biology 167:293-300.
Purvis, A. y A. Rambaut. 1994. Comparative Analysis by Independent Contrasts (CAIC), version 2. Oxford University. 26 pp.
Purvis A., y A. Rambaut. 1995. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts(LAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data.Computer Applicationsin theBiosciences 11:247-251.
Rahbek, C. 1997. The relationship among area, elevation, and regional species richness in neotropical birds. The American Naturalist 149:875-902.
Rapoport,E.H. 1975.Areografía.Estrategias geográficas de las especies.Fondo deCulturaEconómica,México. 214 pp.
Rapoport,E.H. 1982.Areography.Geographical strategies of species. The Fundación Bariloche Series. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 269 pp.
Ricklefs, R.E. y D.Schluter. 1993.Species diversity in ecological communities. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. 414 pp.
Rohde, K. 1992. Latitudinal gradientsin species diversity: the search forthe primary cause. Oikos 65:514-527.
Rohde, K. 1996. Rapoport’s rule is a local phenomenon and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species diversity. Biodiversity Letters 3:10-13.
Rohde, K., M. Heap y D. Heap. 1993. Rapoport’s rule does not apply to marine teleosts and cannot explain latitudinal gradients in species richness. The American Naturalist 142:1-16.
Rohde, K. y M. Heap. 1996. Latitudinal ranges of teleost fish in the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans. The American Naturalist 147:659-665.
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995.Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 436 pp.
Roy K., D.Jablonski y J.W. Valentine. 1994. EasternPacific molluscan provinces and latitudinal diversity gradient: no evidence for “Rapoport’s Rule”.Proceedings of the National Academic ofScience, USA 91:8871-8874.
Ruggiero, A. 1994. Latitudinal correlates of the sizes of mammalian geograhical rangesinSouth America. Journal of Biogeography 21:545-559.
Ruggiero, A. y J.H. Lawton. 1998. Are there latitudinal and altitudinal Rapoport effects in the geographic ranges of Andean passerines birds? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 63:283-304.
Smith, F.D.M., R.M. May y P.H. Harvey. 1994. Geographical ranges of Australian mammals. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:441-450.
Stevens, G.C. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. The American Naturalist 133:240-256.
Stevens, G.C. 1992a. The elevational gradientin altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal rule to altitude. The American Naturalist 140:893-911.
Stevens, G.C. 1992b.Spilling over the competitive limits to species coexistence. Pp. 40-58. En: Elredge, N. (ed.). Systematics, Ecology and the Biodiversity Crisis. Columbia University Press, New York.
Stevens, G.C. 1996. Extending Rapoport’srule toPacific marine fishes.Journal of Biogeography 23:149- 154.
Descargas
Publicado
1999-06-01
Cómo citar
Ruggiero, A. (1999). Búsqueda de patrones en macroecología: la regla de Rapoport. Ecología Austral, 9(1), 045–063. Recuperado a partir de https://ojs.ecologiaaustral.com.ar/index.php/Ecologia_Austral/article/view/1609
Número
Sección
Ayuda didáctica
Licencia
Las/os autoras/es conservan sus derechos de autoras/es: 1) cediendo a la revista el derecho a su primera publicación, y 2) registrando el artículo publicado con una Licencia de Atribución de Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0), lo que permite a autoras/es y terceros verlo y utilizarlo siempre que mencionen claramente su origen (cita o referencia incluyendo autoría y primera publicación en esta revista). Las/os autores/as pueden hacer otros acuerdos de distribución no exclusiva siempre que indiquen con claridad su origen, así como compartir y divulgar ampliamente la versión publicada de su trabajo.
