ArticleScientific reports2026
High altitude limits the biogeography of common rats but not house mice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Common rats (Rattus rattus and Rattus norvegicus) and the house mouse (Mus musculus) are globally distributed synanthropic rodents, yet their tolerance to high altitude has never been assessed at a global scale. We combined worldwide occurrence records with climatic and elevational data to compare their observed and potential altitudinal ranges. Using more than 200,000 curated Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) records, we assigned elevation to each occurrence and built MaxEnt species distribution models incorporating elevation and four bioclimatic variables. Rats and mice overlapped broadly at low and mid elevations; however, both rat species showed a sharp and consistent decline in occurrence above ~ 2,500 m. Only 2.3-2.7% of rat records occurred above this threshold, compared with ~ 10% for M. musculus. Species distribution models corroborated this pattern, predicting high-altitude regions, including the Andean and Tibetan plateaus, and major mountain ranges in North America and Asia, as largely unsuitable for rats but suitable for mice. Minimum and maximum temperature were the strongest predictors of habitat suitability for all species, yet elevation exerted a markedly stronger negative effect on rats than on mice. These findings identify elevation as a major global constraint on the biogeography of common rats but not house mice, likely reflecting species-specific physiological limits related to hypoxia tolerance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.