Bergmann’s rule predicts increasing body sizes at higher elevations. The elevational Rapoport’s rule predicts an increase of elevational range size with higher elevations. Both rules have often been related to effects of temperature. Larger bodies allow more efficient heat preservation at lower temperature, explaining Bergmann’s rule. Higher temperature variability may select for adaptations that allow increased range sizes, explaining Rapoport’s rule. The generality of both rules has been challenged and evidence towards explanatory mechanisms has been equivocal. We investigated temperature and its variability as explanations for Bergmann’s and Rapoport’s rule in moths along an elevation gradient in Switzerland. In particular, we tested for relationships between elevation, temperature and body size across almost 300 species of Macrolepidoptera along a gradient from 600 to 2400 m a.s.l. The gradient was resampled throughout the vegetation season, which allowed assessing temperature effects independently from elevation. We controlled analyses for covariate traits of moths and their phylogeny. We found a positive relationship between body size and elevation, but no link with temperature. Furthermore, there was no positive link between average elevation and elevational range, but there was between temperature variability and elevational range. We conclude that mechanisms other than temperature can lead to increasing body sizes with elevation (supporting Bergmann’s pattern, but not the mechanism). Contrary to that, data support the mechanism for Rapoport’s rule: high temperature variability is associated with large ranges. However, because temperature variability is not necessarily increasing with elevation, it may not always lead to the geographic pattern predicted.
Akaike’s Information Criterion
Cytochrome Oxidase subunit 1
Maximum Local Temperature Range (experienced by a species)
Ordinary Least Squares
Principal Coordinates Analysis
phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares
Generalized Linear Model
temperature range (experienced by a species)
Albert, C.H., W. Thuiller, N.G. Yoccoz, A. Soudant, F. Boucher, P. Saccone and S. Lavorel. 2010. Intraspecific functional variability: extent, structure and sources of variation. J. Ecol. 98: 604–613.
APG–Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. 2009. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 161: 105–121.
Ashton, K.G. and C.R. Feldman. 2003. Bergmann’s rule in nonavian reptiles: turtles follow it, lizards and snakes reverse it. Evolution 57: 1151–1163.
Beck, J., F. Altermatt, R. Hagmann and S. Lang. 2010. Seasonality in the altitude–diversity pattern of Alpine moths. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11: 714–722.
Bergmann, C. 1848. Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger Studien 1: 595–708.
Blackburn, T.M. and B.A. Hawkins. 2004. Bergmann’s rule and the mammal fauna of northern North America. Ecography 27: 715–724.
Brehm, G. and K. Fiedler. 2004. Bergmann’s rule does not apply to geometrid moths along an elevational gradient in an Andean montane rain forest. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 13: 7–14.
Brehm, G., P. Strutzenberger and K. Fiedler. 2013. Phylogenetic diversity of geometrid moths decreases with elevation in the tropical Andes. Ecography 36: 1247–1253.
Brown, J.H. and B.A. Maurer. 1989. Macroecology: The division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243: 1145–1150.
Burnham K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach. Springer, Berlin.
Casey, T.M. and B.A. Joos. 1983. Morphometrics, conductance, thoracic temperature, and flight energetics of noctuid and geometrid moths. Physiol. Zool. 56: 160–173.
Chown, S.L., A. Addo-Bediako and K.J. Gaston. 2002. Physiological variation in insects: large-scale patterns and their implications. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. (B) 131: 587–602.
Colwell, R.K. and G.C. Hurtt. 1994. Nonbiological gradients in species richness and a spurious Rapoport effect. Am. Nat. 144: 570–595.
Davies, R.B., E. Ounap, J. Javois, P. Gerhold and T. Tammaru. 2012. Degree of specialization is related to body size in herbivorous insects: a phylogenetic confirmation. Evolution 67: 583–589.
Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., M.Á. Rodríguez, L.M. Bini, M.Á. Olalla-Tarraga, M. Cardillo, J.C. Nabout, J. Hortal and B.A. Hawkins. 2009. Climate history, human impacts and global body size of Carnivora (Mammalia: Eutheria) at multiple evolutionary scales. J. Biogeogr. 36: 2222–2236.
Dynesius, M. and R. Jansson. 2000. Evolutionary consequences of changes in species’ geographical distributions driven by Milankovitch climate oscillations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 97: 9115–9120.
Fischer, K. and K. Fiedler. 2002. Reaction norms for age and size at maturity in response to temperature: a test of the compound interest hypothesis. Evol. Ecol. 16: 333–349.
Forstmeier W. and H. Schielzeth. 2011. Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65: 47–55.
Gaston, K.J. and S.L. Chown. 2013. Macroecological patterns in insect body size. In: F.A. Smith and S.K. Lyons (eds.), Animal Body Size: Linking Pattern and Process across Space, Time and Taxonomic Group. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp. 13–61.
Heinrich, B. 1993. The Hot-blooded Insects: Strategies and Mechanisms of Thermoregulation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Hu, J.H., F. Xie, C. Li and J.P. Jiang. 2011. Elevational patterns of species richness, range and body size for spiny frogs. PLoS One 6: e19817.
Jackson, L.S. and P.M. Forster. 2010. An empirical study of geographic and seasonal variations in diurnal temperature range. J. Climate 23: 3205–3221.
Janzen, D.H. 1967. Why mountain passes are higher in the tropics. Am. Nat. 101: 233–249.
Kingsolver, J.G., H. A. Woods, L.B. Buckley, K.A. Potter, H.J. MacLean and J.K. Higgins. 2011. Symposium. Complex life cycles and the responses of insects to climate change, 14 pp. Integr. Comp. Biol., Oxford Univ. Press. doi: 10.1093/icb/icr015.
Lee, S.Y., G.R. Scott and W.K. Milsom. 2008. Have wing morphology or flight kinematics evolved for extreme high altitude migration in the bar-headed goose? Comp. Biochem. Physiol. (C) 148: 324–331.
Linacre, E. 1982. The effect of altitude on the daily range of temperature. J. Climatol. 2: 375–382.
Lindstroem, J., L. Kaila and P. Niemelä. 1994. Polyphagy and adult body size in geometrid moths. Oecologia 98: 130–132.
Longino, J.T. and R.K. Colwell. 2011. Density compensation, species composition, and richness of ants on a Neotropical elevational gradient. Ecosphere 2: art29.
Luke J., H., J.T. Weir, C. D. Brock, R.E. Glor and W. Challenger. 2008. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24:129–131.
McCain, C.M. and K.B. Knight. 2013. Elevational Rapoport’s rule is not pervasive on mountains. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22: 750–759.
McCain, C.M. 2009. Vertebrate range sizes indicate that mountains may be ‘higher’ in the tropics. Ecol. Lett. 12: 550–560.
Meiri, S. 2010. Bergmann’s rule – what’s in a name? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20: 203–207.
Merckx, T. and E.M. Slade. 2014. Macro-moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light-trap monitoring programmes. Ins. Cons. Divers. 7: 453–461.
Olalla-Tárraga, M.A. and M.A. Rodriguez. 2007. Energy and interspecific body size patterns of amphibian faunas in Europe and North America: anurans follow Bergmann’s rule, urodeles its converse. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 606–617.
Pagel, M. 1997. Inferring evolutionary processes from phylogenies. Zool. Scr. 26: 331–348.
Paradis, E., J. Claude and K. Strimmer. 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20: 289–290.
Regier, J.C., C. Mitter, A. Zwick, A.L. Bazinet, M.P. Cummings, A.Y. Kawahara, J.-C. Sohn, D.J. Zwickl, S. Cho, D.R. Davis, J. Baixeras, J. Brown, C. Parr, S. Weller, D.C. Lees and K.T. Mitter. 2013. A large-scale, higher-level, molecular phylogenetic study of the insect order Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies). PLoS One 8: e58568.
Rodríguez, M.Á., M.Á. Olalla-Tárraga and B.A. Hawkins. 2008. Bergmann’s rule and the geography of mammal body size in the Western Hemisphere. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 274–283.
Ruggiero, A. and B.A. Hawkins. 2006. Mapping macroecology. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 433–437.
Sandel, B., L. Arge, B. Dalsgaard, R.G. Davies, K.J. Gaston, W.J. Sutherland and J.-C. Svenning. 2011. The influence of late quaternary climate-change velocity on species endemism. Science 334: 660–664.
Sanders, N.J. 2002. Elevational gradients in ant species richness: area, geometry, and Rapoport’s rule. Ecography 25: 25–32.
Stevens, G.C. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. Am. Nat. 133: 240– 256.
Stevens, G.C. 1992. The elevational gradient in altitudinal range: an extension of Rapoport’s latitudinal rule to altitude. Am. Nat. 140: 893–911.
Sullivan, J.B. and W.E. Miller. 2007. Intraspecific body size variation in Macrolepidoptera as related to altitude of capture site and seasonal generation. J. Lepidopt. Soc. 61: 72–77.
Tomašových, A., D. Jablonski, S.K. Berke, A.Z. Krug and J.W. Valentine. 2015. Nonlinear thermal gradients shape broad-scale patterns in geographic range size and can reverse Rapoport’s rule. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24: 157–167.
Truxa, C. and K. Fiedler. 2012. Attraction to light – from how far do moths (Lepidoptera) return to weak artificial sources of light? Europ. J. Entomol. 109: 77–84.
Watt, C., S. Mitchell and V. Salewski. 2010. Bergmann’s rule: a concept cluster? Oikos 119: 89–100.
Wiens, J.J., D.D. Ackerly, A.P. Allen, B.L. Anacker, L.B. Buckley, H.V. Cornell, E.I. Damschen, T.J. Davies, J.-A. Grytnes, S.P. Harrison, B.A. Hawkins, R.D. Holt, C.M. McCain and P.R. Stephens. 2010. Niche conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Lett. 13: 1310–1324.
Woods, H.A. 2013. Ontogenetic changes in the body temperature of an insect herbivore. Funct. Ecol. 27: 1322–1331.
Zamora-Camacho, F.J., S. Reguera and G. Moreno-Rueda. 2014. Bergmann’s rule rules body size in an ectotherm: heat conservation in a lizard along a 2200-metre elevational gradient. J. Evol. Biol. 27: 2820–2828.
Zuo, W., M.E. Moses, G.B. West, C. Hou and J.H. Brown. 2012. A general model for effects of temperature on ectotherm ontogenetic growth and development. Proc. Roy. Soc. (B) 279: 1840– 1846.
About this article
Cite this article
Beck, J., Liedtke, H.C., Widler, S. et al. Patterns or mechanisms? Bergmann’s and Rapoport’s rule in moths along an elevational gradient. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 17, 137–148 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2016.17.2.2
- Body size
- Range size
- Temperature variability