Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33599290›Full record

ArticleEvolution; international journal of organic evolution2021

Why aren't rabbits and hares larger?

Susumu Tomiya, Lauren K Miller

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Why aren't rabbits and hares larger?Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Susumu TomiyaCenter for International Collaboration and Advanced Studies in Primatology, Kyoto University Primate Research Institute, Inuyama, Aichi, 484-8506, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-6038-899X
Lauren K MillerDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Macroevolutionary consequences of competition among large clades have long been sought in patterns of lineage diversification. However, mechanistically clear examples of such effects remain elusive. Here, we postulated that the limited phenotypic diversity and insular gigantism in lagomorphs could be explained at least in part by an evolutionary constraint placed on them by potentially competing ungulate-type herbivores (UTHs). Our analyses yielded three independent lines of evidence supporting this hypothesis: (1) the minimum UTH body mass is the most influential predictor of the maximum lagomorph body mass in modern ecoregions; (2) the scaling patterns of local-population energy use suggest universal competitive disadvantage of lagomorphs weighing over approximately 6.3 kg against artiodactyls, closely matching their observed upper size limit in continental settings; and (3) the trajectory of maximum lagomorph body mass in North America from the late Eocene to the Pleistocene (37.5-1.5 million years ago) was best modeled by the body mass ceiling placed by the smallest contemporary perissodactyl or artiodactyl. Body size evolution in lagomorphs has likely been regulated by the forces of competition within the clade, increased predation in open habitats, and importantly, competition from other ungulate-type herbivores. Our findings suggest conditionally-coupled dynamics of phenotypic boundaries among multiple clades within an adaptive zone, and highlight the synergy of biotic and abiotic drivers of diversity.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionBody SizeAnimalsEcosystemFossilsHaresModels, BiologicalNorth AmericaRabbitsBody sizecompetitionLagomorphamacroecologymacroevolution

Identifiers

PMID33599290
PMCPMC8252017
OpenAlexW3133096044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.