Do Rapoport's Rule, Mid-Domain Effect or Environmental Factors Predict Latitudinal Range Size Patterns of Terrestrial Mammals in China?

BACKGROUND: Explaining species range size pattern is a central issue in biogeography and macroecology. Although several hypotheses have been proposed, the causes and processes underlying range size patterns are still not clearly understood. In this study, we documented the latitudinal mean range size patterns of terrestrial mammals in China, and evaluated whether that pattern conformed to the predictions of the Rapoport's rule several analytical methods. We also assessed the influence of the mid-domain effect (MDE) and environmental factors on the documented range size gradient. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Distributions of 515 terrestrial mammals and data on nine environmental variables were compiled. We calculated mean range size of the species in each 5° latitudinal band, and created a range size map on a 100 km×100 km quadrat system. We evaluated Rapoport's rule according to Steven's, mid-point, Pagel's and cross-species methods. The effect of the MDE was tested based on a Monte Carlo simulation and linear regression. We used stepwise generalized linear models and correlation analyses to detect the impacts of mean climate condition, climate variability, ambient energy and topography on range size. The results of the Steven's, Pagel's and cross-species methods supported Rapoport's rule, whereas the mid-point method resulted in a hump-shaped pattern. Our range size map showed that larger mean latitudinal extents emerged in the mid-latitudes. We found that the MDE explained 80.2% of the range size variation, whereas, environmental factors accounted for <30% of that variation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Latitudinal range size pattern of terrestrial mammals in China supported Rapoport's rule, though the extent of that support was strongly influenced by methodology. The critical factor underlying the observed gradient was the MDE, and the effects of climate, energy and topography were limited. The mean climate condition hypothesis, climate variability hypothesis, ambient energy hypotheses and topographical heterogeneity hypotheses were not supported.