Scientists have found that individual animals of the same species tend to be smaller in hotter environments and larger in cooler ones. They named this pattern “Bergmann’s Rule” to describe how temperature can influence the size of an animal. However, most studies of Bergmann’s Rule have only looked at one or a few species at a time.

Knowing how many species follow this rule is important because globally rising temperatures could cause lots of species to become smaller. Since the size of organisms affects how much food and space they need, this could disrupt natural systems around the world.

To test if Bergmann’s rule can be extended to many species, Riemer, Guralnick, and White assessed the relationship between temperature and body mass for 952 bird and mammal species. Contrary to Bergmann’s Rule, the results showed that most of the species had similar sizes regardless of the temperature of their environment. Only about 140 species were smaller in hotter environments, and about 70 species were larger in hotter environments. This suggest that Bergmann’s Rule does not apply to most species as expected.

While most birds and mammals may not get bigger or smaller due to warming global temperatures, the few species that do change in size – and the species that interact with them – may be more likely to become endangered or extinct. If we can determine which animals are at risk, we can prioritize their conservation and design better plans for doing so. Losing even a single species disrupts our ecosystems, on which we rely for critical resources like food, building materials, and clean air.

Bergmann's rule describes a negative relationship between body mass and temperature across space that is believed to be common in endothermic species (Bergmann, 1847; Brown and Lee, 1969; Kendeigh, 1969; Freckleton et al., 2003; Carotenuto et al., 2015). Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain this pattern (Blackburn et al., 1999; Ashton, 2002; Watt et al., 2010) including the heat loss hypothesis, which argues that the higher surface area to volume ratio of smaller individuals results in improved heat dissipation in hot environments (Bergmann, 1847). Though originally described for closely-related species (i.e., interspecific; Blackburn et al., 1999), the majority of studies have focused on the intraspecific form of Bergmann's rule (Rensch, 1938; Meiri, 2011) by assessing trends in individual size within a species (Langvatn and Albon, 1986; Yom-Tov and Geffen, 2006; Gardner et al., 2009). Bergmann's rule has been questioned both empirically and mechanistically (McNab, 1971; Geist, 1987; Huston and Wolverton, 2011; Teplitsky and Millien, 2014) but the common consensus from recent reviews is that the pattern is general (Ashton et al., 2000; Ashton, 2002; Meiri and Dayan, 2003; Watt and Salewski, 2011).

It has recently been suggested that this negative relationship between mass and temperature could result in decreasing individual size across species in response to climate change (Sheridan and Bickford, 2011) and that this may be a ‘third universal response to warming’ (Gardner et al., 2011). The resulting shifts in size distributions could significantly alter ecological communities (Brose et al., 2012), especially if the rate of size decrease varies among species (Sheridan and Bickford, 2011). While there is limited empirical research on body size responses to changes in temperature through time (but see Smith et al., 1995; Caruso et al., 2014; Teplitsky and Millien, 2014), the apparent generality of Bergmann's rule across space indicates the likelihood of a similar relationship in response to temperature change across time.

The generality of Bergmann's rule is based on many individual studies that analyze empirical data on body size across an environmental gradient (e.g., Langvatn and Albon, 1986; Barnett, 1977; Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979; Dayan et al., 1989; Sand et al., 1995) and reviews that compile and evaluate the results from these studies (Ashton, 2002; Meiri and Dayan, 2003; Watt et al., 2010). Most individual studies of Bergmann's rule are limited by: (1) analyzing only one or a few species (e.g., Langvatn and Albon, 1986); (2) using small numbers of observations (e.g., Fuentes and Jaksic, 1979); (3) only including data at the small scales typical of ecological studies (e.g., Sand et al., 1995); (4) using latitude instead of directly assessing temperature (e.g., Barnett, 1977); and (5) focusing on statistical significance instead of the strength of the relationship (e.g., Dayan et al., 1989). The reviews tabulate the results of these individual studies and assess patterns in the direction and significance of relationships across species. Such aggregation of published results allows for a more general understanding of the pattern but, in addition to limitations of the underlying studies, the conclusions may be influenced by publication bias and selective reporting due to studies or individual analyses that do not support Bergmann's rule being published less frequently (Koricheva et al., 2013).

Previous analyses of publication bias in the context of Bergmann’s rule have found no evidence for selective publication, which supports the idea that it is a general rule (Ashton, 2002; Meiri et al., 2004). However, two of the most extensive studies of Bergmann’s rule, which both used museum records to assess dozens of intraspecific Bergmann’s rule relationships simultaneously, found that the majority of species did not exhibit significant positive relationships between latitude and size (McNab, 1971; Meiri et al., 2004). As a result, understanding the generality of this ecophysiological rule and its potential implications for global change requires more extensive analysis.

A data-intensive approach to analyzing Bergmann's rule, evaluating the pattern using large amounts of broad scale data, has the potential to overcome existing limitations in the literature and provide a new perspective on the generality of the intraspecific form of Bergmann's rule. Understanding the generality of the temperature-mass relationship has important implications for how size will respond to climate change. We use data from VertNet (Constable et al., 2010), a large compilation of digitized museum records that contains over 700,000 globally distributed individual-level size measures, to evaluate the intraspecific relationship between temperature and mass for 952 mammal and bird species. The usable data consist of 273,901 individuals with an average of 288 individuals per species, with individuals of each species spanning an average of 75 years and 34 latitudinal degrees. This approach reduces or removes many of the limitations to previous approaches and the results suggest that Bergmann's rule is not a strong or general pattern.

Most of the species in this study showed weak non-significant relationships between temperature and mass (Figures 1 and 2). The distribution of correlation coefficients was centered near zero with a mean correlation coefficient of −0.05 across species (Figure 2A). Relationships for 79% of species were not significantly different from zero based on false discovery rate-controlled p values and associated z scores, while 14% of species' relationships were significant and negative and 7% were significant and positive (Figure 2A, Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Temperature explained less than 10% of variation in mass (i.e., −0.316 < r < 0.316) for 87% of species, indicating that temperature explained very little of the observed variation in mass for these species (Figure 2A).

Figure 1 with 12 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2 with 7 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The weak, non-directional intraspecific relationships indicated by the distribution of correlation coefficients are consistent across taxonomic groups and temporal lags. Mean correlation coefficients for both endothermic classes are −0.006 and −0.065, for mammals and birds respectively (Figure 2B). Similarly, correlation coefficient distributions were approximately centered on zero for all of the 30 orders analyzed (−0.2 < ${\displaystyle \overline{\mathrm{r}}}$ < 0.003 for orders with more than 10 species; Figure 3 and Figure 3—figure supplement 1), and for migrant and nonmigrant bird species (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Correlation coefficient distributions for temperature-mass relationships using lagged temperatures were centered around zero like those using temperature from the collection year (Figure 4 and Figure 4—figure supplement 1), indicating that there was not a temporal lag effect on the response of species' masses to temperature. Correlation coefficients did not vary systematically by sample size (Figure 5A), extent of variation in temperature or mass (Figure 5B,C), species' average mass (Figure 5D), or species' average latitude (Figure 5E). While temperature is considered the actual driver, some studies use latitude as a proxy when evaluating variation in size (Bergmann, 1847; Stillwell, 2010). Using latitude, the mean correlation coefficient was −0.05 with no statistically significant latitude-mass relationship for 71% of species (Figure 2—figure supplement 3), while the respective values for temperature were −0.05 and 79% (Figure 2A). Results were robust to a variety of decisions and stringencies about how to filter the size (Figure 2—figure supplements 4 and 5) and species data (Figure 2—figure supplements 6 and 7).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

In contrast to conventional wisdom and several recent review papers, our analysis of 952 species shows little to no support for a negative intraspecific temperature-mass relationship that is sufficiently strong or common to be considered a biogeographic rule. Three quarters of bird and mammal species show no significant change in mass across a temperature gradient and temperature explained less than 10% of intraspecific variation in mass for 87% of species (Figure 2A). This was true regardless of taxonomic group (Figures 2 and 3), temporal lag in temperature (Figure 4), species' size, location, or sampling intensity or extent (Figure 5). These results are consistent with two previous studies that examined museum specimen size measurements across latitude. The first study showed that 22 out of 47 North American mammal species studied had no relationship between latitude and length, and 10 of the 25 significant relationships were opposite the expected direction (McNab, 1971). The second found a similar proportion of non-significant results (42/87), but a lower proportion of significant relationships that opposed the rule (9/45) for carnivorous mammals (Meiri et al., 2004). While more species had significant negative relationships than positive in both our study and these two museum-based studies, in all cases less than half of species had significant negative correlations (14–41%). In combination with these two smaller studies, our results suggest that there is little evidence for a strong or general Bergmann's rule when analyzing raw data instead of summarizing published results.

Our results are inconsistent with recent reviews, which have reported that the majority of species conform to Bergmann's rule (Ashton, 2002; Meiri and Dayan, 2003; Watt et al., 2010). While these reviews included results that were either non-significant or opposite of Bergmann's rule, the proportion of significant results in support of Bergmann's rule was higher and therefore resulted in conclusions that supported the generality of the temperature-mass relationship. Generalizing from results in the published literature involves the common challenges of publication bias and selective reporting (Koricheva et al., 2013). In addition, because the underlying Bergmann's rule studies typically report minimal statistical information, often providing only relationship significance or direction instead of p-values or correlation coefficients (Meiri and Dayan, 2003), proper meta-analyses and associated assessments of biological significance are not possible. While several reviews found no evidence for publication bias using limited analyses (Ashton, 2002; Meiri et al., 2004), the notable differences between the conclusions of our data-intensive approach and those from reviews suggest that publication bias in literature examining Bergmann's rule warrants further investigation. These differences also demonstrate the value of data-intensive approaches in ecology for overcoming potential weaknesses and biases in the published literature. Directly analyzing large quantities of data from hundreds of species allows us to assess the generality of patterns originally reported in smaller studies while avoiding the risk of publication bias. This approach additionally makes it easier to integrate other factors that potentially influence size into future analyses. The new insight gained from this data-intensive approach demonstrates the value of investing in large compilations of ecologically-relevant data (Hampton et al., 2013) and the proper training required to work with these datasets (Hampton et al., 2017).

Our analyses and conclusions are limited to the intraspecific form of Bergmann’s rule. This is the most commonly studied and well-defined form of the relationship, and the one most amenable to analyses using large compilations of museum data. Difficulty in interpreting Bergmann’s original formulation has resulted in an array of different ideas and implementations of interspecific analyses (Blackburn et al., 1999; Meiri and Thomas, 2007; Watt et al., 2010; Meiri, 2011). The most common forms of these interspecific analyses involve correlations between various species-level size metrics and environmental measures and are conducted at various taxonomic levels from genus to class (e.g., Blackburn and Gaston, 1996; Diniz-Filho et al., 2007; Boyer et al., 2009; Clauss et al., 2013). Efforts to apply data-intensive approaches to the interspecific form of this relationship will need to address the fact that occurrence records are not evenly distributed across the geographic range of species, and determine how the many interpretations of interspecific Bergmann’s rule are related to one another and the biological expectations for interspecific responses to temperature.

The original formulation of Bergmann's rule, and the scope of our conclusions, apply only to endotherms. However, negative temperature-mass relationships have also been documented in ectotherms, with the pattern referred to as the size-temperature rule (Ray, 1960; Angilletta and Dunham, 2003). In contrast to the hypotheses for Bergmann's rule, which are based primarily on homeostasis (Gardner et al., 2011), the size-temperature rule in ectotherms is thought to result from differences between growth and development rates (Forster et al., 2011). The current version of VertNet contained ectotherm size data for only seven species, which is not sufficient to complete a comprehensive analysis of the ectotherm size-temperature rule. Future work exploring the ectotherm size-temperature rule in natural systems using data-intensive approaches is necessary for understanding the generality of this rule in ectotherms, and data may be sought for this effort in the literature or via a coordinated effort by museums to continue digitizing size measurements for specimens.

A number of mechanisms have been suggested to explain why higher temperatures should result in lower body sizes, including heat loss, starvation, resource availability, migratory ability, and phylogenetic constraints (Blackburn et al., 1999). Most of the proposed hypotheses have not been tested sufficiently to allow for strong conclusions to be drawn about their potential to produce Bergmann's rule (Blackburn et al., 1999; Watt et al., 2010; Teplitsky and Millien, 2014) and the widely studied heat loss hypothesis has been questioned for a variety of reasons (James, 1970; McNab, 1971; Blackburn et al., 1999; Watt et al., 2010; McNamara et al., 2016). While no existing hypotheses have been confirmed, it is possible that some processes are producing negative relationships between size and temperature. The lack of a strong relationship does not preclude processes that result in a negative temperature-mass relationship, but it does suggest that these processes have less influence relative to other factors that affect intraspecific size.

The relative importance of the many factors besides temperature that can influence size within a species is as yet unknown. Size is affected by abiotic factors such as humidity and resource availability (Teplitsky and Millien, 2014), characteristics of individuals like clutch size (Boyer et al., 2009), and community context, including possible gaps in size-related niches (Smith et al., 2010) and the trophic effects of primary productivity on consumer size (Sheridan and Bickford, 2011). Temperature itself can have indirect effects on size, such as via habitat changes in water flow or food availability, that result in size responses opposite of Bergmann's rule (Gardner et al., 2011). Anthropogenic influences have been shown to influence the effect of temperature on size (Faurby and Araújo, 2016), and similar impacts of dispersal, extinctions, and the varying scales of climate change have been proposed (Clauss et al., 2013). Because our data primarily came from North America, further analyses focused on species native to other continents could reveal differing temperature-mass relationships due to varying temperature regimes. While our work shows that more species have negative significant relationships between temperature and mass than positive, only 21% of species have statistically significant relationships and it consequently appears that some combination of other factors more strongly drives intraspecific size variation for most endothermic taxa.

The lack of evidence for temperature as a primary determinant of size variation in endothermic species calls into question the hypothesis that decreases in organism size may represent a third universal response to global warming. The potentially general decline in size with warming was addressed by assessments that evaluated dynamic body size responses to temperature using similar approaches to the Bergmann's rule reviews discussed above (Sheridan and Bickford, 2011; Gardner et al., 2011; Teplitsky and Millien, 2014). The results of these temporal reviews were similar to those for spatial relationships, but the conclusions of these studies clearly noted the variability in body size responses and the need for future data-intensive work (Sheridan and Bickford, 2011; Gardner et al., 2011) using broader temperature ranges (Teplitsky and Millien, 2014) to fully assess the temperature-size relationship.

Our results in combination with those from other studies suggest that much of the observed variation in size is not explained simply by temperature. While there is still potential for the size of endotherms, and other aspects of organismal physiology and morphology, to respond to both geographic gradients in temperature and climate change, these responses may not be as easily explained solely by temperature as has been suggested (Sheridan and Bickford, 2011; Gardner et al., 2011). Future attempts to explain variation in the size of individuals across space or time should use integrative approaches to include the influence of multiple factors, and their potential interactions, on organism size. This will be facilitated by analyzing spatiotemporal data similar to that used in this study, which has broad ranges of time, space, and environmental conditions for large numbers of species and individuals. This data-intensive approach provides a unique perspective on the general responses of bird and mammal species to temperature, and has potential to assist in further investigation of the complex combinations of factors that determine biogeographic patterns of endotherm size and how species respond to changes in climate.

1. 1. Willmott CJ
   2. Matsuura K

   (2001) Terrestrial Air Temperature and Precipitation: Monthly and Annual Time Series (1950 - 1999) [Air Temperature Monthly Mean V3.01]

   Publicly available at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory website (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/).

   https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.UDel_AirT_Precip.html
2. 1. Bloom D

   (2016) VertNet Amphibia

   Publicly available at Data Commons (http://datacommons.cyverse.org/).

   https://dx.doi.org/10.7946/P2F59W
3. 1. Bloom D

   (2016) VertNet Aves

   Publicly available at Data Commons (http://datacommons.cyverse.org/).

   https://dx.doi.org/10.7946/P2K01C
4. 1. Bloom D

   (2016) VertNet Mammalia

   Publicly available at Data Commons (http://datacommons.cyverse.org/).

   https://dx.doi.org/10.7946/P2TG68
5. 1. Bloom D

   (2016) VertNet Reptilia

   Publicly available at Data Commons (http://datacommons.cyverse.org/).

   https://dx.doi.org/10.7946/P2Z59J

1. 1. Angilletta MJ
   2. Dunham AE

   (2003) The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: simple evolutionary explanations may not be general

   The American Naturalist 162:332–342.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/377187

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ashton KG
   2. Tracy MC
   3. Queiroz AD

   (2000) Is Bergmann’s rule valid for mammals?

   The American Naturalist 156:390–415.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/303400

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Ashton KG

   (2002) Patterns of within-species body size variation of birds: strong evidence for Bergmann's rule

   Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:505–523.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2002.00313.x

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Barnett RJ

   (1977) Bergmann's rule and variation in structures related to feeding in the gray squirrel

   Evolution 31:538–545.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1977.tb01043.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Benajmini Y
   2. Hochberg Y

   (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate : a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing

   Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 57:289–300.

   https://doi.org/10.2307/2346101

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bergmann C

   (1847)

   Uber Die Verhaltnisse Der Warmekonomie Der Tiere Zu Ihrer Grosse

   Gottinger Studien 3:595–708.

   • Google Scholar
7. Website

   1. Biodiversity Research and Teaching Collections - TCWC Vertebrates

   (2015) Texas A&M University Biodiversity Research and Teaching Collections

   Accessed 2017.

   http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=tcwc_verts
8. Website

   1. Birdlife International

   (2017) Migratory Status of Bird Species of the World

   Accessed 2017.

   http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis
9. 1. Blackburn TM
   2. Gaston KJ
   3. Loder N

   (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: A clarification of Bergmann’s rule

   Diversity and Distributions pp. 165–174.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.1999.00046.x

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blackburn TM
    2. Gaston KJ

    (1996) Spatial patterns in the body sizes of bird species in the new world

    Oikos 77:436–446.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/3545933

    • Google Scholar
11. Website

    1. Bloom D
    2. Wieczorek J
    3. Russell L

    (2016a) Vertnet_Amphibia_Sep2016

    http://datacommons.cyverse.org/browse/iplant/home/shared/commons_repo/curated/Vertnet_Amphibia_Sep2016
12. Website

    1. Bloom D
    2. Wieczorek J
    3. Russell L

    (2016b) Vertnet_Aves_Sep2016

    http://datacommons.cyverse.org/browse/iplant/home/shared/commons_repo/curated/Vertnet_Aves_Sep2016
13. Website

    1. Bloom D
    2. Wieczorek J
    3. Russell L

    (2016c) Vertnet_Mammalia_Sep2016

    http://datacommons.cyverse.org/browse/iplant/home/shared/commons_repo/curated/Vertnet_Mammalia_Sep2016
14. Website

    1. Bloom D
    2. Wieczorek J
    3. Russell L

    (2016d) Vertnet_Reptilia_Sep2016

    http://datacommons.cyverse.org/browse/iplant/home/shared/commons_repo/curated/Vertnet_Reptilia_Sep2016
15. 1. Boyer AG
    2. Cartron J-LE
    3. Brown JH

    (2009) Interspecific pairwise relationships among body size, clutch size and latitude: deconstructing a macroecological triangle in birds

    Journal of Biogeography 37:47–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02175.x

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Brose U
    2. Dunne JA
    3. Montoya JM
    4. Petchey OL
    5. Schneider FD
    6. Jacob U

    (2012) Climate change in size-structured ecosystems

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367:2903–2912.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0232

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Brown JH
    2. Lee AK

    (1969) Bergmann's rule and climatic adaptation in woodrats (neotoma)

    Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 23:329–338.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1969.tb03515.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Brown JH
    2. Nicoletto PF

    (1991) Spatial scaling of species composition: body masses of North American land mammals

    The American Naturalist 138:1478–1512.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/285297

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Carotenuto F
    2. Diniz-Filho JAF
    3. Raia P

    (2015) Space and time: The two dimensions of Artiodactyla body mass evolution

    Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 437:18–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.07.013

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Caruso NM
    2. Sears MW
    3. Adams DC
    4. Lips KR

    (2014) Widespread rapid reductions in body size of adult salamanders in response to climate change

    Global Change Biology 20:1751–1759.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12550

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. Website

    1. CAS Mammalogy (MAM)

    (2015) California Academy of Sciences

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.calacademy.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=mam
22. Website

    1. CAS Ornithology (ORN)

    (2015) California Academy of Sciences

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.calacademy.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=orn
23. Website

    1. Charles R
    2. Conner Museum

    (2015) CRCM Vertebrate Collection

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=crcm_verts
24. Website

    1. CHAS Mammalogy Collection (Arctos)

    (2016) Chicago Academy of Sciences

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=chas_mammals
25. 1. Clauss M
    2. Dittmann MT
    3. Müller DWH
    4. Meloro C
    5. Codron D

    (2013) Bergmann′s Rule in Mammals: A Cross-Species Interspecific Pattern

    Oikos 122:1465–1472.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00463.x

    • Google Scholar
26. Website

    1. CM Birds Collection

    (2015) Carnegie Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=cm_birds
27. Website

    1. Collections AM

    (2015) American Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=amnh_mammals
28. 1. Constable H
    2. Guralnick R
    3. Wieczorek J
    4. Spencer C
    5. Peterson AT
    6. VertNet Steering Committee

    (2010) VertNet: a new model for biodiversity data sharing

    PLoS Biology 8:1–4.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000309

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. Website

    1. Cowan Tetrapod Collection - Birds

    (2015) University of British Columbia Beaty Biodiversity Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ubc_bbm_ctc_birds
30. Website

    1. Cowan Tetrapod Collection - Mammals

    (2015) University of British Columbia Beaty Biodiversity Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ubc_bbm_ctc_mammals
31. Website

    1. CUMV Bird Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=cumv_bird
32. Website

    1. CUMV Mammal Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=cumv_mamm
33. 1. Dayan T
    2. Tchernov E
    3. Yom-Tov Y
    4. Simberloff D

    (1989) Ecological Character Displacement in Saharo-Arabian Vulpes: Outfoxing Bergmann's Rule

    Oikos 55:263–272.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/3565430

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Diniz-Filho JAF
    2. Bini LM
    3. Rodríguez MÁ
    4. Rangel TFLVB
    5. Hawkins BA

    (2007) Seeing the forest for the trees: partitioning ecological and phylogenetic components of Bergmann's rule in European Carnivora

    Ecography 30:598–608.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.04988.x

    • Google Scholar
35. Website

    1. DMNH Birds

    (2015) Delaware Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=dmnh_birds
36. Website

    1. DMNS Bird Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Denver Museum of Nature & Science

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=dmns_bird
37. Website

    1. DMNS Mammal Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Denver Museum of Nature & Science

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=dmns_mamm
38. 1. Faurby S
    2. Araújo MB

    (2016) Anthropogenic impacts weaken Bergmann’s rule

    Ecography pp. 1–2.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02287

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Forster J
    2. Hirst AG
    3. Woodward G

    (2011) Growth and development rates have different thermal responses

    The American Naturalist 178:668–678.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/662174

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Freckleton RP
    2. Harvey PH
    3. Pagel M

    (2003) Bergmann's rule and body size in mammals

    The American Naturalist 161:821–825.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/374346

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Fuentes ER
    2. Jaksic FM

    (1979) Latitudinal size variation of chilean foxes: tests of alternative hypotheses

    Ecology 60:43–47.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1936466

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Gardner JL
    2. Heinsohn R
    3. Joseph L

    (2009) Shifting latitudinal clines in avian body size correlate with global warming in Australian passerines

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:3845–3852.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Gardner JL
    2. Peters A
    3. Kearney MR
    4. Joseph L
    5. Heinsohn R

    (2011) Declining body size: a third universal response to warming?

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26:285–291.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Geist V

    (1987) Bergmann's rule is invalid

    Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:1035–1038.

    https://doi.org/10.1139/z87-164

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Guralnick RP
    2. Zermoglio PF
    3. Wieczorek J
    4. LaFrance R
    5. Bloom D
    6. Russell L

    (2016) The Importance of Digitized Biocollections as a Source of Trait Data and a New VertNet Resource

    Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation pp. 1–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baw158

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Hampton SE
    2. Jones MB
    3. Wasser LA
    4. Schildhauer MP
    5. Supp SR
    6. Brun J
    7. Hernandez RR
    8. Boettiger C
    9. Collins SL
    10. Gross LJ
    11. Fernández DS
    12. Budden A
    13. White EP
    14. Teal TK
    15. Labou SG
    16. Aukema JE

    (2017) Skills and Knowledge for Data-Intensive Environmental Research

    Bioscience 67:546–557.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Hampton SE
    2. Strasser CA
    3. Tewksbury JJ
    4. Gram WK
    5. Budden AE
    6. Batcheller AL
    7. Duke CS
    8. Porter JH

    (2013) Big data and the future of ecology

    Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:156–162.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/120103

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hoffmann A
    2. Decher J
    3. Rovero F
    4. Schaer J
    5. Voigt C
    6. Wibbelt G

    (2010)

    Field Methods and Techniques for Monitoring Mammals

    Manual on Field Recording Techniques and Protocols for All Taxa Biodiversity Inventories and Monitoring 8:482–529.

    • Google Scholar
49. Website

    1. HSU Wildlife Mammals

    (2016) Humboldt State University

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=hsu_wildlife_mammals
50. 1. Huston MA
    2. Wolverton S

    (2011) Regulation of animal size by eNPP, Bergmann's rule, and related phenomena

    Ecological Monographs 81:349–405.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1523.1

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. James FC

    (1970) Geographic size variation in birds and its relationship to climate

    Ecology 51:365–390.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1935374

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Kendeigh SC

    (1969) Tolerance of Cold and Bergmann's Rule

    The Auk 86:13–25.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/4083537

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Kironde H
    2. D. Morris B
    3. Goel A
    4. Zhang A
    5. Narasimha A
    6. Negi S
    7. J. Harris D
    8. Gertrude Digges D
    9. Kumar K
    10. Jain A
    11. Pal K
    12. Amipara K
    13. Simran Singh Baweja P
    14. P. White E

    (2017) Retriever: Data Retrieval Tool

    The Journal of Open Source Software 2:00451.

    https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00451

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Koricheva J
    2. Gurevitch J
    3. Mengersen K

    (2013)

    Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution

    Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution.

    • Google Scholar
55. Website

    1. KUBI Mammalogy Collection

    (2016) KU Biodiversity Institute

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.nhm.ku.edu/ipt/resource.do?r=kubi_mammals
56. Website

    1. KUBI Ornithology Collection

    (2014) KU Biodiversity Institute

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.nhm.ku.edu/ipt/resource.do?r=kubi_ornithology
57. Website

    1. LACM Vertebrate Collection

    (2015) Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=lacm_verts
58. 1. Langvatn R
    2. Albon SD

    (1986) Geographic clines in body-weight of norwegian red deer - A novel explanation of Bergmann rule

    Holarctic Ecology 9:285–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1986.tb01221.x

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. McNab BK

    (1971) On the ecological significance of Bergmann's rule

    Ecology 52:845–854.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1936032

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. McNamara JM
    2. Higginson AD
    3. Verhulst S

    (2016) The influence of the starvation-predation trade-off on the relationship between ambient temperature and body size among endotherms

    Journal of Biogeography 43:809–819.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12695

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Meiri S
    2. Dayan T
    3. Simberloff D

    (2004) Carnivores, biases and Bergmann's rule

    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81:579–588.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00310.x

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Meiri S
    2. Dayan T

    (2003) On the Validity of Bergmann’s Rule

    Journal of Biogeography 1847:331–351.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00837.x

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Meiri S
    2. Thomas GH

    (2007) The geography of body size – challenges of the interspecific approach

    Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:689–693.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00343.x

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Meiri S

    (2011) Bergmann's Rule - what's in a name?

    Global Ecology and Biogeography 20:203–207.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00577.x

    • Google Scholar
65. Website

    1. MLZ Bird Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Moore Laboratory of Zoology

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=mlz_bird
66. Website

    1. MLZ Mammal Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Moore Laboratory of Zoology

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=mlz_mamm
67. 1. Morris BD
    2. White EP

    (2013) The EcoData retriever: improving access to existing ecological data

    PLoS ONE 8:e65848–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065848

    • Google Scholar
68. Website

    1. MSB Bird Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Museum of Southwestern Biology

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=msb_bird
69. Website

    1. MSB Mammal Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Museum of Southwestern Biology

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=msb_mamm
70. Website

    1. MVZ Bird Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, UC Berkeley

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=mvz_bird
71. Website

    1. MVZ Mammal Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, UC Berkeley

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=mvz_mammal
72. Website

    1. NCSM Mammals Collection

    (2015) North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ncsm_mammals
73. Website

    1. NMMNH Mammal

    (2015) New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=nmmnh_mammals
74. Website

    1. Ohio State University Tetrapod Division - Bird Collection (OSUM)

    (2015) Ohio State University

    Accessed 2017.

    http://hymfiles.biosci.ohio-state.edu:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=osum-birds
75. Website

    1. Ornithology Collection Non Passeriformes - Royal Ontario Museum

    (2015) Royal Ontario Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://gbif.rom.on.ca:8180/ipt/resource.do?r=birdsnonpass
76. Website

    1. Ornithology Collection Passeriformes - Royal Ontario Museum

    (2015) Royal Ontario Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://gbif.rom.on.ca:8180/ipt/resource.do?r=birdspass
77. Software

    1. R Core Team

    (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.r-project.org/
78. 1. Ray C

    (1960) The application of Bergmann's and Allen's Rules to the poikilotherms

    Journal of Morphology 106:85–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051060104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Rensch B

    (1938) Some problems of geographical variation and species-formation

    Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 150:275–285.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1938.tb00182k.x

    • Google Scholar
80. Software

    1. Riemer K
    2. White E

    (2017) MassResponseToTemp, version dc765aa889311915f9632c25a81144e75575ee2b

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/KristinaRiemer/MassResponseToTemp
81. 1. Sand H
    2. Cederlund G
    3. Danell K

    (1995) Geographical and latitudinal variation in growth patterns and adult body size of Swedish moose (Alces alces)

    Oecologia 102:433–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00341355

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. Website

    1. SBMNH Vertebrate Zoology

    (2015) Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=sbmnh_verts
83. Website

    1. Schmidt Museum of Natural History_Mammals

    (2015) Schmidt Museum of Natural History, Emporia State University

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=kstc_schmidt_mammals
84. Website

    1. SDNHM Birds Collection

    (2015) San Diego Natural History Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=sdnhm_birds
85. 1. Seabold S
    2. Perktold J

    (2010)

    Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python

    Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference pp. 57–61.

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Sheridan JA
    2. Bickford D

    (2011) Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change

    Nature Climate Change 1:401–406.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1259

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Smith FA
    2. Betancourt JL
    3. Brown JH

    (1995) Evolution of Body Size in the Woodrat over the Past 25,000 Years of Climate Change

    Science 270:2012–2014.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5244.2012

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Smith FA
    2. Boyer AG
    3. Brown JH
    4. Costa DP
    5. Dayan T
    6. Ernest SK
    7. Evans AR
    8. Fortelius M
    9. Gittleman JL
    10. Hamilton MJ
    11. Harding LE
    12. Lintulaakso K
    13. Lyons SK
    14. McCain C
    15. Okie JG
    16. Saarinen JJ
    17. Sibly RM
    18. Stephens PR
    19. Theodor J
    20. Uhen MD

    (2010) The Evolution of Maximum Body Size of Terrestrial Mammals

    Science 330:1216–1219.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194830

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Stacey DA
    2. Fellowes MDE

    (2002) Temperature and the development rates of thrips: Evidence for a constraint on local adaptation?

    European Journal of Entomology 99:399–404.

    https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2002.049

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Steudel K
    2. Porter WP
    3. Sher D

    (1994) The biophysics of Bergmann's rule: a comparison of the effects of pelage and body size variation on metabolic rate

    Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:70–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1139/z94-010

    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Stillwell RC

    (2010) Are latitudinal clines in body size adaptive?

    Oikos 119:1387–1390.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18670.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Teplitsky C
    2. Millien V

    (2014) Climate warming and Bergmann's rule through time: is there any evidence?

    Evolutionary applications 7:156–168.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12129

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. Website

    1. TTU Mammals Collection

    (2015) Museum of Texas Tech University (TTU)

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ttu_mammals
94. Website

    1. UAM Bird Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) University of Alaska Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=uam_bird
95. Website

    1. UAM Mammal Collection (Arctos)

    (2015) University of Alaska Museum

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=uam_mamm
96. Website

    1. UAZ Mammal Collection

    (2016) University of Arizona Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=uaz_mammals
97. Website

    1. UCLA Donald R

    (2015) University of California, Los Angeles. Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ucla_birds_mammals
98. Website

    1. UCM Birds

    (2015) University of Colorado Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ucm_birds
99. Website

    1. UCM Mammals Collection

    (2015) University of Colorado Museum of Natural History

    Accessed 2017.

    http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ucm_mammals
100. Website

     1. UMMZ Birds Collection

     (2015) University of Michigan Museum of Zoology

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=ummz_birds
101. Website

     1. University of Alberta Mammalogy Collection (UAMZ)

     (2015) University of Alberta Museums

     Dataset. Accessed 2017.

     http://web.macs.ualberta.ca:8088/ipt/resource?r=uamz_mammalogy
102. Website

     1. University of Alberta Ornithology Collection (UAMZ)

     (2015) University of Alberta Museums

     Dataset. Accessed 2017.

     http://web.macs.ualberta.ca:8088/ipt/resource?r=uamz_ornithology
103. Website

     1. USAC Mammals Collection

     (2013) Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=usac_mammals
104. Website

     1. UWBM Mammalogy Collection

     (2015) University of Washington Burke Museum

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=uwbm_mammals
105. Website

     1. UWBM Ornithology Collection

     (2015) University of Washington Burke Museum.

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=uwbm_birds
106. Website

     1. UWYMV Bird Collection (Arctos)

     (2015) University of Wyoming Museum of Vertebrates

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=uwymv_bird
107. Website

     1. Vertebrate Zoology Division - Mammalogy, Yale Peabody Museum

     (2015) Yale Peabody Museum

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.peabody.yale.edu/ipt/resource.do?r=ipt_vz_mam
108. Website

     1. Vertebrate Zoology Division - Ornithology, Yale Peabody Museum

     (2015) Yale Peabody Museum

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.peabody.yale.edu/ipt/resource.do?r=ipt_vz_orn
109. 1. Watt C
     2. Mitchell S
     3. Salewski V

     (2010) Bergmann's rule; a concept cluster?

     Oikos 119:89–100.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17959.x

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Watt C
     2. Salewski V

     (2011) Bergmann's rule encompasses mechanism: a reply to Olalla-Tárraga (2011)

     Oikos 120:1445–1447.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19968.x

     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Wieczorek J
     2. Bloom D
     3. Guralnick R
     4. Blum S
     5. Döring M
     6. Giovanni R
     7. Robertson T
     8. Vieglais D

     (2012) Darwin Core: an evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard

     PLoS ONE 7:e29715.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029715

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. Website

     1. Willmott CJ
     2. Matsuura K

     (2001) Terrestrial Air Temperature and Precipitation: Monthly and Annual Time Series (1950-1999)

     http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/README.ghcn_ts2.html
113. 1. Winker K

     (2000) Obtaining, preserving, and preparing bird specimens

     Journal of Field Ornithology 71:250–297.

     https://doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-71.2.250

     • Google Scholar
114. Website

     1. WNMU Bird Collection (Arctos)

     (2015) Western New Mexico University

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=wnmu_bird
115. Website

     1. WNMU Mammal Collection (Arctos)

     (2015) Western New Mexico University

     Accessed 2017.

     http://ipt.vertnet.org:8080/ipt/resource.do?r=wnmu_mamm
116. 1. Yom-Tov Y
     2. Geffen E

     (2006) Geographic variation in body size: the effects of ambient temperature and precipitation

     Oecologia 148:213–218.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0364-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Thank you for submitting your article "No general relationship between mass and temperature in endotherm species" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been favorably evaluated by Diethard Tautz (Senior Editor) and three reviewers, one of whom, Christian Rutz (Reviewer #1), is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Alison Boyer (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary:

Your study uses an unprecedented dataset of animal measurements to assess the generality of one of the best-known biogeographic 'rules', and as such holds great potential for stimulating future research. The reviewers agreed that this is a noteworthy advance, but have identified a few issues that need to be addressed in a revision (essential revisions).

Essential revisions:

- Scope. You rightly note in the Introduction (first paragraph) that Bergmann's rule was originally formulated for closely-related species (i.e., interspecific patters), but you then proceed – like most earlier studies – to explore intraspecific relationships only. A comprehensive assessment of this long-standing hypothesis would cover both intra- and interspecific perspectives, and the reviewers wondered whether you could add results for the latter? These additional analyses shouldn't be too onerous, yet they would add substantial value to the manuscript. Otherwise, it should be made clear throughout that the intraspecific facet of Bergmann's rule is being examined.

- Statistical analyses. While the reviewers enjoyed the intuitive graphical illustration of results, and found that the overall patterns look compelling, they think it is essential that formal statistical analyses are conducted to support the study's conclusions. What is the null hypothesis for Figure 2A (and accompanying supporting figures)? Given the distribution of latitudes, sample sizes etc., what is the expected distribution of r values? Can Fisher's r-to-z transformation be used to calculate a null distribution, and to estimate the excess of positive and negative values?

- Migratory birds. The results for birds are complicated because many of them are migratory (e.g., in the USA, birds migrate between North and South America). This is an important confounding factor, as for almost all species, it is impossible to satisfactorily define the latitude at which they exist (in fact, this problem may even apply at smaller scales, if species move in response to extrinsic factors, such as harsh weather conditions). This alone argues against the generality of Bergmann's rule, and suggests that it has little applicability to birds. Please formally explore the effect of this confound on the overall patterns observed, for example, by re-running analyses with (migratory) birds excluded.

[Editors' note: further revisions were requested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for sending your article entitled "No general relationship between mass and temperature in endothermic species" for peer review at eLife. Your article is being evaluated by one peer reviewer, and the evaluation is being overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Diethard Tautz as the Senior Editor.

One of the original reviewers has kindly provided further comments on your statistical analyses, and we would appreciate if you could briefly respond to these, as there may have been a misunderstanding:

They clarified that their point was that you could have more simply converted the r -> z and overlain a z distribution rather than highlighting statistically significant values. They noted that overlaying a z-distribution on z-transformed r values would show the extent of disagreement or not in the tails more clearly. They also commented that r is just bounded at -1 and 1, so the information is quite limited, and that overall, r is not a particularly informative comparative measure of effect size for heterogeneous data varying in sample size etc.

Essential revisions:

- Scope. You rightly note in the Introduction (first paragraph) that Bergmann's rule was originally formulated for closely-related species (i.e., interspecific patters), but you then proceed – like most earlier studies – to explore intraspecific relationships only. A comprehensive assessment of this long-standing hypothesis would cover both intra- and interspecific perspectives, and the reviewers wondered whether you could add results for the latter? These additional analyses shouldn't be too onerous, yet they would add substantial value to the manuscript. Otherwise, it should be made clear throughout that the intraspecific facet of Bergmann's rule is being examined.

We have decided, after extensive discussion, that adding interspecific analyses of Bergmann’s rule would make the current manuscript too complex and difficult to follow and therefore these analyses warrant their own manuscript. The reason for this is that the interspecific analyses in the literature have been conducted in a number of different ways, none of which immediately aligns with large scale individual-level data. The most common older form of this analysis involves assessing changes in the average size of a species as a function of the latitudinal centroid of its geographic distribution, where each point is a species within a genus. Two examples from the literature illustrate the variety in this type of analysis: correlations between body length and mean breeding range latitude for species within genus, family, and order (Boyer et al., 2010) and correlation between geometric mean mass and six environmental variables, including a phylogenetic component, for species within an order (Diniz-Filho et al., 2007). Newer analyses do something similar using range maps for entire assemblages and look at how the average size of all species in the assemblage varies across grid cells in response to environmental factors, as in Blackburn and Gaston (1996). Neither of these approaches are well suited to analysis using VertNet data because these data are not necessarily collected broadly or evenly across each species’ geographic range.

This diversity of approaches comes from the range of conclusions that have been reached about the contents of Bergmann (1847). Bergmann states that the pattern should apply across “races”. This is difficult to interpret, especially given how taxonomic classification has changed. It is generally agreed upon that “closely related species” is analogous, though this is only somewhat less vague in terms of selecting useful and appropriate analyses. Many of the interspecific approaches taken also have statistical and inference limits that need to be explored. Consequently, addressing the pattern more broadly is quite a bit more complicated than, e.g., using genus instead of species to group individual-level sizes. As a result of these complexities, a sufficient exploration of interspecific Bergmann’s rule would require additional data, new analyses, and the space of a full manuscript to explain and explore this approach.

That said, we certainly agree that this is an important topic to explore, including in new ways using the kinds of data used in this paper. Therefore, we have added a paragraph to the Discussion summarizing the importance and challenges of pursuing this question as in future research. We have also added language throughout the manuscript to emphasize that the analyses pertain to the intraspecific version of Bergmann’s rule.

- Statistical analyses. While the reviewers enjoyed the intuitive graphical illustration of results, and found that the overall patterns look compelling, they think it is essential that formal statistical analyses are conducted to support the study's conclusions. What is the null hypothesis for Figure 2A (and accompanying supporting figures)? Given the distribution of latitudes, sample sizes etc., what is the expected distribution of r values? Can Fisher's r-to-z transformation be used to calculate a null distribution, and to estimate the excess of positive and negative values?

If we understand correctly, we believe that this question reflects a failure on our part to clearly communicate the analyses that we have already conducted. The null hypothesis for Figure 2A is that no species has an intraspecific relationship between temperature and mass. Given the distribution of temperatures/latitudes and sample sizes, this null hypothesis would lead to a distribution of correlation coefficients roughly centered on zero with some species showing larger positive and negative values of r by chance and some of these relationships (roughly 5%) appearing to be statistically significant at p < 0.05 based on their Z scores. The standard approach to assessing the expected (null) form of this distribution and to estimate the number of excess positive and negative values is by controlling the false discovery rate (Verhoeven et al., 2005; Garcia, 2004; Pike, 2010; Waite and Campbell, 2006; Nakagawa, 2004). This analysis has already been conducted and presented in Figure 2. In that figure, r values falling within the null distribution are presented in white and the “excess” negative and positive values are shown in purple and green, respectively. As is standard when controlling the false discovery rate, we did the calculations on the p-values which are calculated from Z scores. Therefore it is our understanding that we have already performed the requested analysis. If we have misunderstood, we would be happy to conduct additional analyses.

We clearly failed to discuss this analysis in sufficient detail to communicate effectively. Consequently we expanded our description of how we assess r and p-values in the Materials and methods, including their expected distributions under both the null and alternative hypotheses. Additionally, we better explained the role of false discovery rate control and what it accomplishes in identifying those species with excess positive and negative relationships beyond the null, and the proportion of species that have no relationship between temperature and mass.

García, Luis V. “Escaping the Bonferroni Iron Claw in Ecological Studies.” Oikos 105, no. 3 (2004): 657–63. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13046.x.

Nakagawa, Shinichi. “A Farewell to Bonferroni: The Problems of Low Statistical Power and Publication Bias.” Behavioral Ecology 15, no. 6 (2004): 1044–45. doi:10.1093/beheco/arh107.

Pike, Nathan. “Using False Discovery Rates for Multiple Comparisons in Ecology and Evolution.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, no. 3 (2011): 278–82. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00061.x.

Verhoeven, KJF, KL Simonsen, LM Mcintyre, Source Oikos, and Fasc Mar. “Implementing False Discovery Rate Control : Increasing Your Power False Discovery Rate Control : Implementing Increasing Your Power.” Oikos 108, no. September 2004 (2005): 643–47.

Waite, Thomas A., and Lesley G. Campbell. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate and Increasing Statistical Power in Ecological Studies 1.” Ecoscience 13, no. 4 (2006): 439–42.

- Migratory birds. The results for birds are complicated because many of them are migratory (e.g., in the USA, birds migrate between North and South America). This is an important confounding factor, as for almost all species, it is impossible to satisfactorily define the latitude at which they exist (in fact, this problem may even apply at smaller scales, if species move in response to extrinsic factors, such as harsh weather conditions). This alone argues against the generality of Bergmann's rule, and suggests that it has little applicability to birds. Please formally explore the effect of this confound on the overall patterns observed, for example, by re-running analyses with (migratory) birds excluded.

This is a really important point, and we thank the reviewers for catching it. We have added separate analyses on bird species in our dataset known as migrants or nonmigrants, see new Figure 2—figure supplement 1. The proportion of species with negative statistically significant, positive statistically significant, and no relationships were similar (i.e., varying by no more than one percentage point) between the migrant species and nonmigrant species. The mean correlation coefficients for migrant species and nonmigrant species were -0.06 and -0.07, respectively. There is a somewhat more apparent shoulder of small r values below zero, but these are all within the null distribution. Therefore our assessment of the new results is that migration had minimal impact on the conclusions of this manuscript. We have added the appropriate text for this figure to the Materials and methods and Results sections.

[Editors' note: further revisions were requested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

One of the original reviewers has kindly provided further comments on your statistical analyses, and we would appreciate if you could briefly respond to these, as there may have been a misunderstanding:

They clarified that their point was that you could have more simply converted the r -> z and overlain a z distribution rather than highlighting statistically significant values. They noted that overlaying a z-distribution on z-transformed r values would show the extent of disagreement or not in the tails more clearly. They also commented that r is just bounded at -1 and 1, so the information is quite limited, and that overall, r is not a particularly informative comparative measure of effect size for heterogeneous data varying in sample size etc.

We received a very thoughtful comment from one reviewer about the benefits of the inclusion of the z scores for each species in our dataset. Consequently, we have included a figure of these z scores in the supplemental material for this manuscript, with corresponding edits to the manuscript text.

Author details

1. Kristina Riemer

   Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   kristina.riemer@weecology.org

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3802-3331

2. Robert P Guralnick

   Department of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Validation, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Ethan P White

   1. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
   2. Informatics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6728-7745

• 4,114

  Page views

• 396

  Downloads

• 43

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.