Range sizes, but not abundance--distance relationships, are conserved globally across birds, plants, and mammals

Range sizes, but not abundance--distance relationships, are conserved globally across birds, plants, and mammals | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 27 March 2026 V1 Latest version Share on Range sizes, but not abundance--distance relationships, are conserved globally across birds, plants, and mammals Authors : Connor Panter 0000-0002-4017-158X [email protected] , Stephan Kambach 0000-0003-3585-5837 , Georg Hähn , Helge Bruelheide 0000-0003-3135-0356 , Steven P. Bachman , Maria Sporbert , Richard Field 0000-0003-2613-2688 , and Franziska Shrodt Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.177462395.55281737/v1 168 views 80 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Understanding whether current macroecological biodiversity patterns are driven by shared evolutionary history remains a central question in biogeography. Here, we examine whether species’ geographic range sizes and abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) exhibit phylogenetic signal across terrestrial taxa, and what this reveals about their evolutionary structuring. We compiled published ADRs together with global range size data and phylogenetic information for 2,545 species, including 1,685 birds, 647 plants, and 213 mammals. Variation in ADRs and range sizes was quantified across taxonomic levels and across clades of increasing phylogenetic distance, and compared with random dispersion null expectations. Phylogenetic signal was evaluated with Bloomberg’s K and Moran’s I , and alternative evolutionary models were compared to assess which processes best described the distribution of ADRs and range sizes across phylogenies. We also examined whether any detected phylogenetic structure remained after accounting for dispersal-related traits, including plant height, seed mass, and body size. We found that range size showed consistent phylogenetic clustering across most taxonomic and phylogenetic levels, indicating that closely related species tend to have similar geographic extents. Contrastingly, ADRs exhibited limited phylogenetic structure, with weak under-dispersion detected only among plant species at intermediate phylogenetic depths. Trait evolution for both ADRs and range sizes was most consistent with an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model, suggesting convergence toward optimal values rather than unrestricted divergence. After accounting for dispersal-related traits, range size retained significant phylogenetic signal, whereas ADRs did not differ from random expectations. Together, these findings indicate that geographic range sizes, but not ADRs, are strongly structured by phylogenetic relatedness across birds, plants, and mammals. Our findings suggest that broad-scale patterns of species’ range size are more evolutionarily conserved than ADRs, implying a fundamental decoupling between macroecological and population-level processes. Range sizes, but not abundance–distance relationships, are conserved globally across birds, plants, and mammals ABSTRACT Understanding whether current macroecological biodiversity patterns are driven by shared evolutionary history remains a central question in biogeography. Here, we examine whether species’ geographic range sizes and abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) exhibit phylogenetic signal across terrestrial taxa, and what this reveals about their evolutionary structuring. We compiled published ADRs together with global range size data and phylogenetic information for 2,545 species, including 1,685 birds, 647 plants, and 213 mammals. Variation in ADRs and range sizes was quantified across taxonomic levels and across clades of increasing phylogenetic distance, and compared with random dispersion null expectations. Phylogenetic signal was evaluated with Bloomberg’s K and Moran’s I , and alternative evolutionary models were compared to assess which processes best described the distribution of ADRs and range sizes across phylogenies. We also examined whether any detected phylogenetic structure remained after accounting for dispersal-related traits, including plant height, seed mass, and body size. We found that range size showed consistent phylogenetic clustering across most taxonomic and phylogenetic levels, indicating that closely related species tend to have similar geographic extents. Contrastingly, ADRs exhibited limited phylogenetic structure, with weak under-dispersion detected only among plant species at intermediate phylogenetic depths. Trait evolution for both ADRs and range sizes was most consistent with an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model, suggesting convergence toward optimal values rather than unrestricted divergence. After accounting for dispersal-related traits, range size retained significant phylogenetic signal, whereas ADRs did not differ from random expectations. Together, these findings indicate that geographic range sizes, but not ADRs, are strongly structured by phylogenetic relatedness across birds, plants, and mammals. Our findings suggest that broad-scale patterns of species’ range size are more evolutionarily conserved than ADRs, implying a fundamental decoupling between macroecological and population-level processes. KEYWORDS abundance , abundant-centre hypothesis , evolutionary history, phylogenetic signal, trait evolution INTRODUCTION Understanding biodiversity patterns and the processes that underlie them across large spatial, temporal, and taxonomic scales is a central objective in biogeography and macroecology (Pearse et al. 2018, McGill 2019, Diniz‐Filho et al. 2023). Contemporary macroecological patterns reflect not only present-day ecological processes but also the evolutionary histories of the lineages that generate them (Maurer et al. 1992, Beck et al. 2012, Hagen et al. 2024). Closely related species often share ecological traits, environmental tolerances, and dispersal strategies, which can lead to similarities in geographic distributions and abundance patterns. Consequently, failing to account for phylogenetic relatedness among taxa may bias comparative macroecological analyses or obscure generalizable ecological patterns (Felsenstein 1985, Martins 1996, Freckleton et al. 2002, Gaston et al. 2008, Chamberlain et al. 2012). For this reason, modern macroecological studies increasingly incorporate phylogenetic information to test whether ecological traits and spatial patterns are evolutionarily conserved or have arisen independently across lineages (Garland Jr et al. 1992, Owens and Bennett 2000, Buckley et al. 2010, CaraDonna and Inouye 2015, Tucker et al. 2017, Cano‐Barbacil et al. 2022). One widely studied but still debated macroecological pattern is the abundant-centre hypothesis, first proposed by Grinnell (1922). This hypothesis suggests that species tend to be most abundant near the centres of their geographic ranges and less abundant towards range edges (Sagarin and Gaines 2002, Rivadeneira et al. 2010, Dallas et al. 2017, 2020, Shalom et al. 2020). If present, this pattern should result in a negative relationship between locally observed abundance and distance from the range centre, commonly referred to as the abundance–distance relationship (hereafter ADR). ADRs have been examined across diverse taxonomic groups including vascular plants (Pérez-Collazos et al. 2009, Dixon et al. 2013, Sporbert et al. 2020), birds (Freeman and Beehler 2018, Burner et al. 2019, Osorio-Olvera et al. 2020), and mammals (Virgós et al. 2011, Martínez‐Gutiérrez et al. 2018, Chaiyes et al. 2020, Wen et al. 2021). However, empirical support for the abundant-centre hypothesis remains inconsistent, with some studies reporting strong ADRs and others finding weak or absent patterns (Dallas et al. 2017, Panter et al. 2025). Several ecological and evolutionary processes could explain this variation in ADR strength among species. For example, species with broad environmental tolerances may maintain relatively uniform abundances across their ranges, whereas species with narrow ecological niches may exhibit stronger declines in abundance toward range margins. Similarly, dispersal ability, biogeographic history, and the presence of environmental barriers may influence how populations are distributed within geographic ranges (Brown et al. 1996). These processes may also interact with anthropogenic factors such as land-use change and habitat fragmentation, which can modify both abundance patterns and the spatial structure of species’ distributions (Fahrig 2003). Consequently, differences in ADRs among species may reflect both deep evolutionary constraints and more recent ecological or anthropogenic influences. Evolutionary history may play a particularly important role in shaping geographic range properties. For example, speciation processes such as allopatric speciation, where populations become isolated by geographic barriers, can generate species with initially restricted distributions that expand over evolutionary time (Hernández-Hernández et al. 2021). If closely related species share similar ecological requirements or dispersal capacities, then geographic range size may show phylogenetic conservatism, resulting in related taxa having more similar range sizes than expected by chance (Webb and Gaston 2003, Waldron 2007, Zacaï et al. 2017). Similar mechanisms may also influence within-range abundance patterns, yet it remains unclear whether the spatial structure of abundance within ranges, captured by ADRs, shows comparable phylogenetic signals. In other words, while closely related species may occupy similar geographic extents, it is not known whether they also share similar spatial distributions of abundance within those ranges. Recent studies have begun to explore the phylogenetic structure of ADRs, but results remain inconclusive. For example, Dallas et al. (2017) found no significant phylogenetic signal in ADRs across approximately 1,400 North American bird, mammal, fish, and tree species. In contrast, a more recent study analysing ADRs across 3,660 species from multiple taxonomic groups suggested that significant ADRs may cluster within particular evolutionary lineages, indicating potential phylogenetic structuring of abundance patterns (Panter et al. 2025). These contrasting results highlight the need to better understand whether ADRs represent evolutionarily conserved characteristics of species or instead arise primarily from ecological and environmental conditions experienced by individual species. One way to investigate this question is to treat ADR strength and geographic range size as species-level traits and examine their evolutionary dynamics across phylogenies. Different evolutionary models are based upon contrasting assumptions on how traits change through time. Under a Brownian motion model, trait values evolve through stochastic processes without directional constraints (Felsenstein 1985). In contrast, Ornstein–Uhlenbeck models incorporate stabilising forces that pull trait values toward long-term optima (Grafen 1989), whereas Early Burst models describe rapid early diversification followed by declining evolutionary rates, as expected under some adaptive radiation scenarios (Simpson 1984, Butler and King 2004, Harmon et al. 2010). Comparing these alternative models can therefore provide insights into whether ADRs and range sizes evolved randomly, converged toward characteristic values, or exhibited rapid diversification during early clade history. Here, we combine a global dataset of abundance–distance relationships across 2,545 species, including 1,685 birds, 647 plants, and 213 mammals, with large-scale phylogenetic information to investigate the eco-evolutionary structure of species’ geographic distributions. Specifically, we ask four questions: 1) Do ADRs and geographic range sizes show non-random patterns across taxonomic and phylogenetic hierarchies? 2) Which evolutionary models best describe the diversification of ADR strength and range size across lineages? 3) Do differences in dispersal-related traits, such as plant height, seed mass, and body mass, help explain variation in these patterns among species? 4) Do these eco-evolutionary patterns differ systematically among birds, plants, and mammals? By addressing these questions, we aim to clarify whether spatial abundance patterns within species’ ranges show signatures of phylogenetic conservatism similar to those observed for geographic range size, and thereby provide new insights into the evolutionary and ecological processes that drive current global abundance–distribution patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data collation and calculation of abundance–distance relationships We used species-level ADR data compiled by Panter et al. (2025). Full methodological details are provided in that study, but the key methodological points are summarised here. A systematic literature search was conducted on 23 July 2021 using the ISI Web of Science database (https://apps.webofknowledge.com). The following search string was applied in the TITLE field: “(abundan* OR abundance-cent* OR abundant niche-cent* OR niche cent* OR abundant-centre hypothesis) AND (range OR geographic range OR range size OR range edge OR species distribution)”. Studies were retained if they met the following criteria: peer-reviewed primary studies presenting spatially explicit abundance observations, publication between 1990 and 2020, extractable abundance data, and publication in English, French, or Spanish. The search string was optimised using the litsearchr R package (Grames et al. 2019) following the processes described in Panter et al. (2025). To maximise coverage, a snowball search was conducted based on studies citing the foundational study by Sagarin and Gaines (2002) up to 31 December 2020. Across both literature search approaches, a database was collated comprising 1,109 potentially suitable studies. Following screening titles, abstracts, and full texts against the selection criteria, useable data were extracted from 14 studies. Within these studies, for each species, abundance observations and corresponding distances from the geographic range centre were extracted. When raw data were not publicly available, corresponding authors were contacted. If data could not be obtained directly, abundance and distance values were digitised from figures using WebPlotDigitizer version 4.5 (Rohatgi 2021). Where studies reported abundance observations but not distances to range centres, distances were calculated using global species range polygons. Range maps were obtained from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2021) and from BirdLife International and the Handbook of the Birds of the World (2021). Geodesic distances between sampling locations and species range centroids were calculated on a spherical surface in the WGS84 coordinate reference system. Geographic data preparation and spatial analyses were conducted in QGIS version 3.44 (Graser et al. 2025, QGIS Development Team 2025). Abundance and distance values were log 10 -transformed to account for large differences in abundance magnitudes and geographic range sizes across taxa. Species represented by fewer than five abundance observations were excluded from further analyses. For each species, the strength of the ADR was quantified as the Spearman rank correlation coefficient ( r s ) between the transformed abundance and distance from the range centre values. Spearman correlations quantify monotonic relationships between variables and are less sensitive to non-normality and extreme values than Pearson correlations because they are based on ranked data rather than raw values (Zar 2010). Negative r s values indicate abundance patterns consistent with the abundant-centre hypothesis. Range size and trait data Log 10 -transformed geographic range sizes were compiled from several sources. Range sizes for plants were obtained from Sporbert et al. (2020) and E. Welk (unpublished data), whereas bird and mammal range sizes were obtained from Froese and Pauly (2022), Tobias et al. (2022), and L. Santini (unpublished data). To explore whether dispersal-related traits might help explain variation in ADR strength or geographic range size, we compiled several species-level trait variables. For plants, we extracted log 10 mean height (m) and log 10 mean seed mass (mg) from the TRY Plant Trait Database (Kattge et al. 2020). Missing values were estimated using Hierarchical Probabilistic Matrix Factorization, which uses phylogenetic relationships among species to improve imputation accuracy (Schrodt et al. 2015). For birds and mammals, log 10 mean body size (g) values were obtained from Tobias et al. (2022) and Cooke et al. (2022). These traits were used as broad proxies for dispersal potential and general life-history strategy rather than direct measures of dispersal ability. Species-level ADR values, numbers of abundance observations, range sizes, and trait values are provided in Figure S1. Taxonomy and Phylogenetic Trees Taxonomic information at the genus, family, and order levels was compiled from The World Flora Online Consortium et al. (2025), Zanne et al. (2014), and Stevens (2017) for plant species, and from the NCBI Taxonomy Database (Schoch et al. 2020) for birds and mammals. The phylogenetic tree for plant species was obtained by pruning the sPlot 3.0 phylogenetic backbone (Bruelheide et al. 2018, Hähn et al. 2025), which is based on the Open Tree of Life version 9.1 (Redelings and Holder 2017, OpenTreeOfLife et al. 2019a, 2019b), to the species included in our dataset. The resulting tree contained 680 plant species across 633 nodes. Phylogenetic trees for birds and mammals were obtained from the VertLife database (Jetz et al. 2012, Upham et al. 2019). These phylogenies represent large posterior distributions inferred from molecular datasets; for this study we used consensus trees pruned to the species included in our dataset. Phylogenetic trees were manipulated and analysed using the phytools R package (Revell 2024). Additional R packages were used for specific steps of the analysis. The taxonlookup package (Cornwall and FitzJohn 2017) was used to extract plant taxonomies, and taxize was used to extract the taxonomy of birds and mammals (Chamberlain and Szöcs 2013; Chamberlain et al. 2020, Kindt 2020). Models of trait evolution were fitted using mvMORPH (Clavel et al. 2015), and phylogenetic generalized least squares models were implemented using nlme (Pinheiro et al. 2025). Species absent from the phylogenies were inserted using a conservative taxonomic procedure. If only one congener was present in the tree, the missing species was attached as a sister taxon at half the terminal branch length. If multiple species were present within the genus, the missing species was attached at the most recent common ancestor of that genus (Revell 2024). This procedure preserved the ultrametric structure of the trees and allowed all species with ADR data to be included in the phylogenetic analyses. Statistical analyses All analyses were conducted separately for plants, birds, and mammals using R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team 2025). Species datasets and phylogenetic trees were first pruned to matching species sets. To quantify variation in ADR strength across the taxonomic hierarchy, we calculated the standard deviation of ADR values within genera, families, and orders. Because standard deviations require multiple observations, this analysis was restricted to subsets where each genus contained at least two species, each family contained at least two genera, and each order contained at least two families. To examine how variation in ADR values is structured across the phylogenetic hierarchy, species were grouped into clades representing increasing phylogenetic distances. Cophenetic distances were calculated from the phylogenetic trees using the phytools package (Revell 2024), and hierarchical clustering was applied to group species into clades defined by increasing branch-length thresholds. Mean standard deviations of ADR values and geographic range sizes were then calculated for each taxonomic or phylogenetic grouping. To determine whether observed variation differed from random expectations, we compared observed mean standard deviations with null distributions generated by independently permuting ADR and range size values among all species 500 times. This permutation procedure provided a baseline expectation for trait variation in the absence of phylogenetic or taxonomic structure (Gotelli and McCabe 2002). Models of trait evolution and phylogenetic signal To investigate the evolutionary dynamics of ADR strength and geographic range size, we fitted three commonly used models of continuous trait evolution: 1) Brownian Motion, 2) Ornstein–Uhlenbeck, and 3) Early Burst models. Models were fitted using the mvMORPH package (Clavel et al. 2015), and relative model support was evaluated using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) scores (Akaike 1998). To facilitate comparisons among taxa, trait values were normalised by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation, and phylogenetic trees were standardised by scaling branch lengths relative to the maximum branch length in each tree. From the best-supported models, we extracted the estimated optimum trait value (Θ), the strength of stabilising selection (α), and the evolutionary rate parameter (σ). Phylogenetic structure in ADR strength and geographic range size was assessed using two complementary metrics. Blomberg’s K (Blomberg et al. 2003) was used to quantify the degree to which trait similarity among species reflects phylogenetic relatedness under a Brownian Motion framework, whereas Moran’s I (Moran 1950) was used to quantify phylogenetic autocorrelation in trait values. Observed values were compared with null distributions generated by randomly permuting trait values among species 500 times. To evaluate whether dispersal-related traits influence ADR strength or geographic range size, we fitted phylogenetic generalized least squares models using the nlme package (Pinheiro et al. 2025). These models included ADR or range size as response variables and dispersal-related traits as predictors, with a covariance structure corresponding to an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model of trait evolution (Martins and Hansen 1997). Residual values from these models, representing ADR or range size variation independent of dispersal proxies, were then used to reassess phylogenetic signal using the same permutation framework described above. RESULTS In total, we compiled ADRs (quantified by Spearman correlation coefficients; r s ), geographic range sizes, and dispersal-related traits for 2,545 species. Bird data comprised 1,685 species (66.2%) in 743 genera, 114 families, and 29 orders, followed by plant data which comprised 647 species (25.4% of the dataset) belonging to 322 genera, 80 families, and 30 orders, whereas mammal data comprised 213 species (8.4%) in 116 genera, 31 families, and 11 orders. Analyses of over- or under-dispersion within taxonomic clades required reduced datasets in which each clade contained multiple lower-level taxa. These reduced datasets included 146 plant species in 34 genera, 10 families, and 5 orders, 952 bird species in 241 genera, 42 families, and 8 orders, and 88 mammal species in 24 genera, 6 families, and 2 orders. Across all species, average ADR values were negative for plants ( r s = −0.06, t = −11.5, df = 673, p < 0.001) and birds ( r s = −0.04, t = −6.3, df = 1,684, p < 0.001), whereas mammal ADR values did not differ significantly from zero ( r s = 0.02, t = 0.7, df = 212, p = 0.5). These results indicate weak but statistically significant ADRs consistent with the abundant-centre hypothesis in plants and birds, while mammals showed no overall directional pattern. Variation in ADR and range size values, quantified using mean standard deviations within clades, showed contrasting patterns between the two traits. ADR values largely conformed to expectations from the null model of random distribution across both taxonomic and phylogenetic hierarchies (Fig. 2a, c, e). In contrast, geographic range sizes were consistently under-dispersed across most hierarchical levels (Fig. 2b, d, f). Range sizes of plant and bird species were under-dispersed at every level of both the taxonomic and phylogenetic hierarchy examined (Fig. 2; Fig. 3). For mammals, range sizes were under-dispersed at the genus level and at intermediate to higher phylogenetic levels (Fig. 2; Fig. 3). Evidence for non-random structure in ADR values was limited, although plant species showed under-dispersion at intermediate phylogenetic levels. Taxonomic clades exhibiting significant over- or under-dispersion are summarised in Table 1 for ADR values and in Table S1 for range sizes. Estimates of optimum trait values from the evolutionary models indicated that sessile plant species had the largest optimal range sizes (7.8 million km²) and the most negative ADR values, consistent with expectations under the abundant-centre hypothesis. In contrast, highly mobile bird species had the smallest estimated optimal range sizes (1.5 million km²), and the optimal ADR value estimated for mammals contradicted the predictions of the abundant-centre hypothesis. Comparisons of models of trait evolution showed that the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model provided a better fit than both the Brownian Motion and Early Burst models for ADR values and geographic range sizes in plants, birds, and mammals (Table 2). Parameter estimates from the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck models fitted to standardised ADR values, range sizes, and branch lengths indicated that both the strength of stabilising selection and the magnitude of stochastic evolutionary variation were highest for ADR values in plants and birds (Table 3). Phylogenetic signals for ADR values, quantified using Blomberg’s K and Moran’s I , generally did not differ from expectations under the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model of trait evolution (Fig. 4). In contrast, results for geographic range sizes indicated detectable phylogenetic structure. Moran’s I suggested that range sizes were generally positively autocorrelated across the phylogeny, whereas non-significant Blomberg’s K values indicated that range sizes were not more strongly clustered among related species than expected under the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model (Fig. 4). Accounting for interspecific differences in dispersal-related traits, including plant height, seed mass, and body size, did not alter the non-significance of phylogenetic signal in ADR values. However, controlling for these traits substantially increased the significance of both Blomberg’s K and Moran’s I for range size, indicating that range sizes are more strongly clustered and phylogenetically autocorrelated than expected under the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model once differences in dispersal-related traits are considered. DISCUSSION Throughout the dataset of 2,545 species, phylogenetic signals in abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) were inconsistent and generally weak. Some under-dispersion was observed in plant species at the family and intermediate phylogenetic levels, but this pattern was not matched in birds and mammals. In contrast, range sizes showed clearer phylogenetic conservatism, supporting previous findings from smaller datasets (Waldron 2007, Zacaï et al. 2017), particularly after accounting for differences in dispersal-related traits. These results suggest that range sizes may be influenced more by macroevolutionary history than ADRs. Across most taxonomic and phylogenetic levels, more closely related taxa tended to have similar range sizes. Evolution of range size appeared more consistent with an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model, indicating a tendency towards macroevolutionary optima rather than purely random or decelerating evolutionary patterns. Estimates of optimum values and selection strength differed across taxa, with sessile plants showing the largest estimated optimum range size and within-range distributional patterns more consistent with abundant-centre predictions (Dallas et al. 2017, Panter et al. 2025). Conversely, highly mobile birds had smaller estimated optimum ranges, and ADRs in mammals did not conform to abundant-centre expectations confirming patterns reported by Panter et al. (2025). These findings suggest that there may be some selection for optimal ADRs in plants and birds, but not mammals. For range sizes, mammals exhibited stronger selection signals, while plants showed little evidence of directional selection, a pattern that aligns with large-scale analyses showing that the relationship between species age and range size varies among major taxa, with significant effects detected in most terrestrial groups (Alzate et al. 2025). This may reflect the capacity of plants to occupy unfilled but suitable geographic and environmental spaces (Svenning and Skov 2004, Dullinger et al. 2012, Estrada et al. 2018, Seliger et al. 2020), whereas more mobile birds and mammals may fill a greater proportion of their potential ranges, at least temporarily. Dispersal capacity is likely a contributing factor (Estrada et al. 2018), although our proxies were limited to plant height, seed mass, and body size, and likely do not capture all relevant aspects of dispersal (Lancaster et al. 2024). The observed patterns for birds are broadly consistent with the “free particle” analogy proposed in early abundant-centre conceptualizations (Grinnell 1922), but should be interpreted cautiously given the limitations of the available data. Range size patterns were generally consistent across birds, plants and mammals, suggesting that species’ ranges are largely conserved through macroevolution, with speciation having limited influence on range size variation at broad phylogenetic scales. Our findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that species’ range limits and extents exhibit significant phylogenetic signal across clades, reflecting shared evolutionary histories (Roy et al. 2009). Mammals exhibited fewer consistent patterns at lower phylogenetic levels, which may reflect additional ecological factors, historical range shifts, or sampling limitations. Under-dispersion of plant ADRs at intermediate phylogenetic levels may reflect family-level differences in growth form or dispersal strategies, although alternative explanations, such as environmental barriers or historical constraints, cannot be excluded (Panter et al. 2025). Phylogenetic correlation metrics showed that Moran’s I often indicated positive autocorrelation for range sizes, while Blomberg’s K generally conformed to expectations under the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model. Accounting for differences in dispersal-related traits increased the phylogenetic signal in plants and birds but had little effect in mammals, consistent with the possibility that body size is not a reliable proxy for dispersal across taxonomic groups (Fourcade and Alhajeri 2023, Panter et al. 2025). While this study provides broad-scale insights into the evolutionary mechanisms which may underlie ADRs and species’ range sizes, several limitations should be acknowledged. Despite spanning large spatial and taxonomic extents, geographic and habitat coverage remained uneven, and our ADR data were derived from a limited number of studies, potentially introducing bias (see Panter et al. 2025). We did not account for key sources of heterogeneity, including differences among biogeographic regions and spatiotemporal stability regimes (Zacaï et al. 2017), availability of geographic or environmental space (Orme et al. 2006), species’ niche breadth (Kambach et al. 2019), evolutionary age and diversification rates (Smyčka et al. 2023, Alzate et al. 2025), life-history strategies (Baker et al. 2025), or species interactions and interaction networks (Perez-Lamarque et al. 2022). The use of geometric centroids as proxies for range centres may not reflect ecological optima, particularly for species with irregular ranges or strong environmental gradients (Santini et al. 2019). We were unable to account for human impacts, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, which may influence both ADRs and species’ range sizes (Powers and Jetz 2019). Furthermore, the absence of raw observation data prevented differentiation between connected and isolated populations or the delineation of core distributions, which may better represent ecological optima (Fristoe et al. 2023). Our selection and use of species’ traits may be considered oversimplifications of dispersal capabilities between taxa and did not include other relevant dimensions such as reproductive strategies, dietary breadth, or thermal niche width, despite evidence that niche breadth across environmental and dietary axes can shape geographic range sizes and abundance–occupancy relationships independently of dispersal ability (Suárez et al. 2023, Caron et al. 2024). Despite these limitations, our analysis provides a robust first-order assessment of the evolutionary underpinnings of ADRs and geographic range sizes across multiple taxonomic groups. In conclusion, our study provides evidence suggesting that range sizes may be more phylogenetically conserved than ADRs across a large, multispecies dataset. Accounting for dispersal-related traits helped explain phylogenetic signals in species’ range size but provided limited inference into the macroevolutionary underpinnings of ADRs. These findings suggest caution in interpreting ADRs as universal macroecological patterns and highlight the importance of considering evolutionary history, dispersal constraints, and data limitations. Addressing these challenges through integrated global datasets, improved dispersal metrics, and explicit consideration of environmental heterogeneity and human impacts will be key to advancing our understanding of the macroevolutionary mechanisms underlying biodiversity patterns across large spatial scales. REFERENCES Akaike, H. (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle . In E. Parzen, K. Tanabe & G. Kitagawa (Eds.), Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike (pp. 199–213). New York, NY: Springer. Alzate, A., Rozzi, R., Velasco, J. A., Robertson, D. R., Zizka, A., Tobias, J. A., Hill, A., Bacon, C. D., Janzen, T., Pellissier, L., van der Plas, F., Rosindell, J. and Onstein, R. E. (2025). Evolutionary age correlates with range size across plants and animals. Nat. Commun. , 16, 7894. Baker, T. R., Abu-Bredu, S., Affum-Baffoe, K., Aiba, S-I., Akite, P., Alexiades, M., Almeida, E., de Oliveira, E. A., Davila, E. A., Amani, C., Andrade, A., Aragao, L., Araujo-Murakami, A., Arets, E., Arroyo, L., Ashton, P., Ifo, S. A. A., Aymard, G. A. C., Baisie, M., Balee, W., Balinga, M., Banin, L. F., Banki, O., Baraloto, C., Barroso, J., Bastin, J-F., Beeckman, H., Begne, S., Bengone, N. N., Berry, N., Betian, W., Bezard, V., Blanc, L., Boeckx, P., Bonal, D., Bongers, F., Brearley, F. Q., Brienen, R., Brown, F., Nasradin, M. B., Burban, B., Burslem, D. F. R. P., Camargo, P., Camargo, J. L., Castro, W., Ceron, C., Moscoso, V. C., Chapman, C., Chave, J., Chezeaux, E., Collins, M., Comiskey, J., Coomes, D., Valverde, F. C., Costa, F. R. C., Cuni-Sanchez, A., da Costa, L., Daly, D. C., Dančák, M., Daniels, A., Dargie, G., Davies, S., De Canniere, C., de Haulleville, T., del Aguila Pasquel, J., Derroire, G., Dexter, K. G., Di Fiore, A., Djuikouo, M-N. K., Doucet, J-L., Droissart, V., Eilu, G., Emilio, T., Engel, J., Enock, B. Y., Ondo, F. E., Ewango, C., Fauset, S., Feldpausch, T. R., Fitriadi, M., Llampazo, G. F., Foli, E. G., Frediksson, G., Galbraith, D. R., Gilpin, M., Gloor, E., Gonmadje, C., Villaroel, R. G., Hall, J., Hamer, K. C., Hamilton, A., Hardy, O., Hart, T., Hédl, R., Herrera, R., Higuchi, N., Hladik, C. M., Coronado, E. H., Huamantupa-Chuquimaco, I., Huasco, W. H., Hubau, W., Idhamsyah, M., Ismail, S. A., Jeffrey, K., Jimenez, E., Jucker, T., Kearsley, E., Kho, L. K., Killeen, T., Kitayama, K., Laurance, W., Laurance, S., Leal, M., Lewis, S. L., Lhota, S., Lindsell, J., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lovett, J., Lowe, R., Magnusson, W. E., Makana, J-R., Malhi, Y., Marimon, B., Junior, B. H. M., Marshall, A., Maycock, C., Mbayu, F., Mendoza, C., Polo, I. M., Metali, F., Mihindou, V., Monteagudo-Mendoza, A., Moore, S., Mucunguzi, P., Mukinzi, J., Munishi, P., Nagy, L., Naisso, P., Neill, D., Lima, A. N., Vargas, P. N., Ojo, L., Palacios, W., Camacho, N. P., Gutierrez, A. P., Peacock, J., Peh, J. S-H., Cruz, A. P., Pendry, C., Pennington, T., Penuela-Mora, M. C., Petronelli, P., Phillips, O. L., Pickavance, G., Pipoly, G. J., Pitman, N., Poulsen, A. D., Prance, G. T., Prieto, A., Primack, R. B., Qie, L., Queenborough, S. A., Sunderland, T., Quesada, C., Arevalo, F. R., Ramirez-Angulo, H., Reitsma, J., Réjou-Méchain, M., Roopsind, A., Rovero, F., Rutishauser, E., Salim, K. A., Salomao, R., Samsoedin, I., Saparudin, M. S., Schietti, J., Segovia, R. A., Serrano, J., Serudia, R., Sheil, D., Silva, N., Espejo, J. S., Silveira, M., Simo-Droissart, M., Singh, J., Sonké, B., Emilio, T., De Sousa, L., Stropp, J., Sukri, R., Sunderland, T., Svátek, M., Swaine, M., Taedoumg, H., Talbot, J., Tan, S., Taplin, J., Taylor, D., ter Steege, H., Terborgh, J., Torres-Lezama, A., Mukendi, J. T., Tuagben, D., van de Meer, P., van der Heijden, G., van der Hout, P., van Nieuwstadt, M., van Ulft, B., Martinez, R. V., Vernimmen, R., Vinceti, B., Vieira, S., Vieira, I. C. G., Torre, E. V., Vlemickx, J., White, L., Willcock, S., Williams, M., Woods, J. T., Yao, T. L., Yassir, I., Zagt, R. and Zemagho, L. (2025). Large range sizes link fast life histories with high species richness across wet tropical tree floras. Sci. Rep. , 15, 4695. Beck, J., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Buchmann, C. M., Dengler, J., Fritz, S. A., Gruber, B., Hof, C., Jansen, F., Knapp, S., Kreft, H., Schneider, A-K., Winter, M. and Dormann, C. F. (2012). What’s on the horizon for macroecology? Ecography , 35, 673–683. BirdLife International & Handbook of the Birds of the World. (2021). Bird species distribution maps of the world . Available at: https://datazone.birdlife.org/ Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T., and Ives, A. R. (2003). Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evol. , 57, 717–745. Brown, J. H., Stevens, G. C. and Kauman, D. M. (1996). The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. , 27, 597–623. Bruelheide, H., Dengler, J., Purschke, O., Lenoir, J., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Hennekens, S. M., Botta-Dukát, Z., Chytrý, M., Field, R., Jansen, F., Kattge, J., Pillar, V. D., Schrodt, F., Mahecha, M. D., Peet, R. K., Sandel, B., van Bodegom, P., Altman, J., Alvarez-Dávila, E., Arfin Khan, M. A. S., Attorre, F., Aubin, I., Baraloto, C., Barroso, J. G., Bauters, M., Bergmeier, E., Biurrun, I., Bjorkman, A. D., Blonder, B., Čarni, A., Cayuela, L., Černý, T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Craven, D., Dainese, M., Derroire, G., De Sanctis, M., Díaz, S., Doležal, J., Farfan-Rios, W., Feldpausch, T. R., Fenton, N. J., Garnier, E., Guerin, G. R., Gutiérrez, A. G., Haider, S., Hattab, T., Henry, G., Hérault, B., Higuchi, P., Hölzel, N., Homeier, J., Jentsch, A., Jürgens, N., Kącki, Z., Karger, D. N., Kessler, M., Kleyer, M., Knollová, I., Korolyuk, A. Y., Kühn, I., Laughlin, D. C., Lens, F., Loos, J., Louault, F., Lyubenova, M. I., Malhi, Y., Marcenò, C., Mencuccini, M., Müller, J. V., Munzinger, J., Myers-Smith, I. H., Neill, D. A., Niinemets, Ü., Orwin, K. H., Ozinga, W. A., Penuelas, J., Pérez-Haase, A., Petřík, P., Phillips, O. L., Pärtel, M., Reich, P. B., Römermann, C., Rodrigues, A. V., Sabatini, F. M., Sardans, J., Schmidt, M., Seidler, G., Silva Espejo, J. E., Silveira, M., Smyth, A., Sporbert, M., Svenning, J.-C., Tang, Z., Thomas, R., Tsiripidis, I., Vassilev, K., Violle, C., Virtanen, R., Weiher, E., Welk, E., Wesche, K., Winter, M., Wirth, C., and Jandt, U. (2018). Global trait–environment relationships of plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 1906–1917. Buckley, L. B., Davies, T. J., Ackerly, D. D., Kraft, N. J. B., Harrison, S. P., Anacker, B. L., Cornell, H. V., Damschen, E. I., Grytnes, J-A., Hawkins, B. A., McCain, C. M., Stephens, P. R. and Wiens, J. J. (2010). Phylogeny, niche conservatism and the latitudinal diversity gradient in mammals. Proc. Roy. Soc. B , 277, 2131–2138. Burner, R. C., Styring, A. R., Rahman, M. A., and Sheldon, F. H. (2019). Occupancy patterns and upper range limits of lowland Bornean birds along an elevational gradient. J. Biogeogr. , 46, 2583–2596. Butler, M. A., and King, A. A. (2004). Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am. Nat. , 164, 683–695. CaraDonna, P. J., and Inouye, D. W. (2015). Phenological responses to climate change do not exhibit phylogenetic signal in a subalpine plant community. Ecol. , 96, 355–361. Caron, F. S., Rivadeneira, D., Rabinovich, J., Pie, M. R., & Morimoto, J. (2024). Range size positively correlates with temperature and precipitation niche breadths but not with dietary niche breadth in triatomine insects, vectors of Chagas disease. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis ., 18, e0012430. Chaiyes, A., Escobar, L. E., Willcox, E. V., Duengkae, P., Suksavate, W., Watcharaanantapong, P., and Bumrungsri, S. (2020). An assessment of the niche centroid hypothesis: Pteropus lylei (Chiroptera). Ecosphere , 11, e03134. Chamberlain, S. A., Hovick, S. M., Dibble, C. J., Rasmussen, N. L., Van Allen, B. G., Maitner, B. S., Ahern, J. R., Bell-Dereske, L. P., Roy, C. L., Meza-Lopez, M., Carrillo, J., Siemann, E., Lajeunesse, M. J., and Whitney, K. D. (2012). Does phylogeny matter? Assessing the impact of phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. , 15, 627–636. Chamberlain, S.A., and Szöcs, E. (2013). taxize: taxonomic search and retrieval in R. F1000Research , 2, 191. Chamberlain, S. A., Szöcs, E., Foster, Z., Arendsee, Z., Boettiger, C., Ram, K., Bartomeus, I., Baumgartner, J., O’Donnell, J., Oksanen, J., Tzovaras, B. G., Marchand, P., Tran, V., Salmon, M., Li, G., and Grenié, M. (2020). taxize: Taxonomic information from around the web. Version R package v0.9.98. Available at: https://github.com/ropensci/taxize Clavel, J., Escarguel, G., and Merceron, G. (2015). mvmorph: an R package for fitting multivariate evolutionary models to morphometric data. Methods Ecol. Evol. , 6, 1311–1319. Cooke, R., Gearty, W., Chapman, A. S. A., Dunic, J., Edgar, G. J., Lefcheck, J. S., Rilov, G., McClain, C. R., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Lyons, S. K., and Bates, A. E. (2022). Anthropogenic disruptions to longstanding patterns of trophic-size structure in vertebrates. Nat. Ecol. Evol. , 6, 684–692. Cornwell, W., and FitzJohn, R. (2017). traitecoevo/taxonlookup v1.1.5: Zenodo. Available at: https://zenodo.org/records/839589 Dallas, T., Santini, L., Decker, R., and Hastings, A. (2020). Weighing the evidence for the abundant-center hypothesis. Biodivers. Inform. , 15, 81–91. Dallas, T., Decker, R. R., and Hastings, A. (2017). Species are not most abundant in the centre of their geographic range or climatic niche. Ecol. Lett. , 20, 1526–1533. Dixon, A. L., Herlihy, C. R., and Busch, J. W. (2013). Demographic and population-genetic tests provide mixed support for the abundant centre hypothesis in the endemic plant Leavenworthia stylosa . Mol. Ecol. , 22, 1777–1791. Dullinger, S., Willner, W., Plutzar, C., Englisch, T., Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L., Moser, D., Ertl, S., Essl, F., and Niklfeld, H. (2012). Post-glacial migration lag restricts range filling of plants in the European Alps. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. , 21, 829–840. Estrada, A., Morales-Castilla, I., Meireles, C., Caplat, P., and Early, R. (2018). Equipped to cope with climate change: traits associated with range filling across European taxa. Ecography , 41, 770–781. Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst ., 34, 487–515. Felsenstein, J. (1985). Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. , 125, 1–15. Fourcade, Y., and Alhajeri, B. H. (2023). Environmental correlates of body size influence range size and extinction risk: a global study in rodents. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. , 32, 206–217. Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. (2002). Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. , 160, 712–726. Freeman, B. G., and Beehler, B. M. (2018). Limited support for the “abundant centre” hypothesis in birds along a tropical elevational gradient: implications for the fate of lowland tropical species in a warmer future. J. Biogeogr. , 45, 1884–1895. Fristoe, T. S., Vilela, B., Brown, J. H., and Botero, C. A. (2023). Abundant-core thinking clarifies exceptions to the abundant-center distribution pattern. Ecography , 2023, e06365. Garland Jr, T., Harvey, P. H., and Ives, A. R. (1992). Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. , 41, 18–32. Gaston, K. J., Chown, S. L., and Evans, K. L. (2008). Ecogeographical rules: elements of a synthesis. J. Biogeogr. , 35, 483–500. Gotelli, N. J. & McCabe, D. J. (2002). Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of J. M. Diamond’s assembly rules model. Ecol. , 83, 2091–2096. Grafen, A. (1989). The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. , 326, 119–157. Grames, E. M., Stillman, A. N., Tingley, M. W., and Elphick, C. S. (2019). An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co-occurrence networks. Methods Ecol. Evol. , 10, 1645–1654. Graser, A., Sutton, T., and Bernasocchi, M. (2025). The QGIS project: spatial without compromise. Patterns , 6, 101265. Grinnell, J. (1922). The role of the “accidental”. The Auk , 39, 373–380. Hagen, O., Viana, D. S., Wiegand, T., Chase, J. M., and Onstein, R. E. (2024). The macro-eco-evolutionary interplay between dispersal, competition and landscape structure in generating biodiversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. , 379, 20230140. Hähn, G. J. A., Damasceno, G., Alvarez-Davila, E., Aubin, I., Bauters, M., Bergmeier, E., Biurrun, I., Bjorkman, A. D., Bonari, G., Botta-Dukát, Z., Campos, J. A., Čarni, A., Chytrý, M., Ćušterevska, R., de Gasper, A. L., De Sanctis, M., Dengler, J., Dolezal, J., El-Sheikh, M. A., Finckh, M., Galán-de-Mera, A., Garbolino, E., Gholizadeh, H., Golub, V., Haider, S., Hatim, M. Z., Hérault, B., Homeier, J., Jandt, U., Jansen, F., Jentsch, A., Kattge, J., Kessler, M., Khania, L., Kreft, H., Küzmič, F., Lenoir, J., Moesland, J. E., Mucina, L., Naqinezhad, A., Noroozi, J., Pérez-Haase, A., Phillips, O. L., Pillar, V. D., Rivas-Torres, G., Ruprecht, E., Sandel, B., Schmidt, M., Schmiedel, U., Schnitzer, S., Schrodt, F., Šilc, U., Sparrow, B., Sporbert, M., Stančić, Z., Strohbach, B., Svenning, J-C., Tang, C. Q., Tang, Z., Vibrans, A. C., Violle, C., Waller, D., Wana, D., Wang, H-F., Whitfeld, T., Zizka, G., Sabatini, F. M., and Bruelheide, H. (2025). Global decoupling of functional and phylogenetic diversity in plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. , 9, 237–248. Harmon, L. J., Losos, J. B., Jonathan, D. T., Gillespie, R. G., Gittleman, J. L., Jennings, W. B., Kozak, K. H., McPeek, M. A., Moreno-Roark, F., Near, T. J., Purvis, A., Ricklefs, R. E., Schulter, D., Schulte II, J. A., Seehausen, O., Sidlauskas, B. L., Torres-Carvajal, O., Weir, J. T., and Mooers, A. Ø. (2010). Early bursts of body size and shape evolution are rare in comparative data. Evol. , 64, 2385–2396. Hernández-Hernández, T., Miller, E. C., Román-Palacios, C., and Wiens, J. J. (2021). Speciation across the tree of life. Biol. Rev. , 96, 1205–1242. IUCN. (2021). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species . Available at: www.iucnredlist.org Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K., and Mooers, A. Ø. (2012). The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature , 491, 444–448. Kambach, S., Lenoir, J., Decocq, G., Welk, E., Seidler, G., Dullinger, S., Gégout, J-C., Guisan, A., Pauli, H., Svenning, J-C., Vittoz, P., Wohlgemuth, T., Zimmermann, N. E., and Bruelheide, H. (2019). Of niches and distributions: range size increases with niche breadth both globally and regionally but regional estimates poorly relate to global estimates. Ecography , 42, 467–477. Kattge, J., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., Prentice, I. C., Leadley, P., Tautenhahn, S., Werner, G. D. A., Aakala, T., Abedi, M., Acosta, A. T. R., Adamidis, G. C., Adamson, K., Aiba, M., Albert, C. H., Alcántara, J. M., Alcázar, C. C., Aleixo, I., Ali, H., Amiaud, B., Ammer, C., Amoroso, M. M., Anand, M., Anderson, C., Anten, N., Antos, J., Apgaua, D. M. G., Ashman, T. L., Asmara, D. H., Asner, G. P., Aspinwall, M., Atkin, O., Aubin, I., Baastrup-Spohr, L., Bahalkeh, K., Bahn, M., Baker, T., Baker, W. J., Bakker, J. P., Baldocchi, D., Baltzer, J., Banerjee, A., Baranger, A., Barlow, J., Barneche, D. R., Baruch, Z., Bastianelli, D., Battles, J., Bauerle, W., Bauters, M., Bazzato, E., Beckmann, M., Beeckman, H., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bekker, R., Belfry, G., Belluau, M., Beloiu, M., Benavides, R., Benomar, L., Berdugo-Lattke, M. L., Berenguer, E., Bergamin, R., Bergmann, J., Bergmann Carlucci, M., Berner, L., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Bigler, C., Bjorkman, A. D., Blackman, C., Blanco, C., Blonder, B., Blumenthal, D., Bocanegra-González, K. T., Boeckx, P., Bohlman, S., Böhning-Gaese, K., Boisvert-Marsh, L., Bond, W., Bond-Lamberty, B., Boom, A., Boonman, C. C. F., Bordin, K., Boughton, E. H., Boukili, V., Bowman, D. M. J. S., Bravo, S., Brendel, M. R., Broadley, M. R., Brown, K. A., Bruelheide, H., Brumnich, F., Bruun, H. H., Bruy, D., Buchanan, S. W., Bucher, S. F., Buchmann, N., Buitenwerf, R., Bunker, D. E., Bürger, J., Burrascano, S., Burslem, D. F. R. P., Butterfield, B. J., Byun, C., Marques, M., Scalon, M. C., Caccianiga, M., Cadotte, M., Cailleret, M., Camac, J., Camarero, J. J., Campany, C., Campetella, G., Campos, J. A., Cano-Arboleda, L., Canullo, R., Carbognani, M., Carvalho, F., Casanoves, F., Castagneyrol, B., Catford, J. A., Cavender-Bares, J., Cerabolini, B. E. L., Cervellini, M., Chacón-Madrigal, E., Chapin, K., Chapin, F. S., Chelli, S., Chen, S. C., Chen, A., Cherubini, P., Chianucci, F., Choat, B., Chung, K. S., Chytrý, M., Ciccarelli, D., Coll, L., Collins, C. G., Conti, L., Coomes, D., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Cornwell, W. K., Corona, P., Coyea, M., Craine, J., Craven, D., Cromsigt, J. P. G. M., Csecserits, A., Cufar, K., Cuntz, M., da Silva, A. C., Dahlin, K. M., Dainese, M., Dalke, I., Dalle Fratte, M., Dang-Le, A. T., Danihelka, J., Dannoura, M., Dawson, S., de Beer, A. J., De Frutos, A., De Long, J. R., Dechant, B., Delagrange, S., Delpierre, N., Derroire, G., Dias, A. S., Diaz-Toribio, M. H., Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., Dobrowolski, M., Doktor, D., Dřevojan, P., Dong, N., Dransfield, J., Dressler, S., Duarte, L., Ducouret, E., Dullinger, S., Durka, W., Duursma, R., Dymova, O., E-Vojtkó, A., Eckstein, R. L., Ejtehadi, H., Elser, J., Emilio, T., Engemann, K., Erfanian, M. B., Erfmeier, A., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Esser, G., Estiarte, M., Domingues, T. F., Fagan, W. F., Fagúndez, J., Falster, D. S., Fan, Y., Fang, J., Farris, E., Fazlioglu, F., Feng, Y., Fernandez-Mendez, F., Ferrara, C., Ferreira, J., Fidelis, A., Finegan, B., Firn, J., Flowers, T. J., Flynn, D. F. B., Fontana, V., Forey, E., Forgiarini, C., François, L., Frangipani, M., Frank, D., Frenette-Dussault, C., Freschet, G. T., Fry, E. L., Fyllas, N. M., Mazzochini, G. G., Gachet, S., Gallagher, R., Ganade, G., Ganga, F., García-Palacios, P., Gargaglione, V., Garnier, E., Garrido, J. L., de Gasper, A. L., Gea-Izquierdo, G., Gibson, D., Gillison, A. N., Giroldo, A., Glasenhardt, M. C., Gleason, S., Gliesch, M., Goldberg, E., Göldel, B., Gonzalez-Akre, E., Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L., González-Melo, A., González-Robles, A., Graae, B. J., Granda, E., Graves, S., Green, W. A., Gregor, T., Gross, N., Guerin, G. R., Günther, A., Gutiérrez, A. G., Haddock, L., Haines, A., Hall, J., Hambuckers, A., Han, W., Harrison, S. P., Hattingh, W., Hawes, J. E., He, T., He, P., Heberling, J. M., Helm, A., Hempel, S., Hentschel, J., Hérault, B., Hereş, A. M., Herz, K., Heuertz, M., Hickler, T., Hietz, P., Higuchi, P., Hipp, A. L., Hirons, A., Hock, M., Hogan, J. A., Holl, K., Honnay, O., Hornstein, D., Hou, E., Hough-Snee, N., Hovstad, K. A., Ichie, T., Igić, B., Illa, E., Isaac, M., Ishihara, M., Ivanov, L., Ivanova, L., Iversen, C. M., Izquierdo, J., Jackson, R. B., Jackson, B., Jactel, H., Jagodzinski, A. M., Jandt, U., Jansen, S., Jenkins, T., Jentsch, A., Jespersen, J. R. P., Jiang, G. F., Johansen, J. L., Johnson, D., Jokela, E. J., Joly, C. A., Jordan, G. J., Joseph, G. S., Junaedi, D., Junker, R. R., Justes, E., Kabzems, R., Kane, J., Kaplan, Z., Kattenborn, T., Kavelenova, L., Kearsley, E., Kempel, A., Kenzo, T., Kerkhoff, A., Khalil, M. I., Kinlock, N. L., Kissling, W. D., Kitajima, K., Kitzberger, T., Kjøller, R., Klein, T., Kleyer, M., Klimešová, J., Klipel, J., Kloeppel, B., Klotz, S., Knops, J. M. H., Kohyama, F., Koike, F., Kollmann, J., Komac, B., Komatsu, K., König, C., Kraft, N. J. B., Kramer, K., Kreft, H., Kühn, I., Kumarathunge, D., Kuppler, J., Kurokawa, H., Kurosawa, Y., Kuyah, S., Laclau, J. P., Lafleur, B., Lallai, E., Lamb, E., Lamprecht, A., Larkin, D. J., Laughlin, D., Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y., le Maire, G., le Roux, P. C., le Roux, E., Lee, T., Lens, F., Lewis, S. L., Lhotsky, B., Li, Y., Li, X., Lichstein, J. W., Liebergesell, M., Lim, J. Y., Lin, Y. S., Linares, J. C., Liu, C., Liu, D., Liu, U., Livingstone, S., Llusià, J., Lohbeck, M., López-García, Á., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lososová, Z., Louault, F., Lukács, B. A., Lukeš, P., Luo, Y., Lussu, M., Ma, S., Pereira, C. M. R., Mack, M., Maire, V., Mäkelä, A., Mäkinen, H., Malhado, A. C. M., Mallik, A., Manning, P., Manzoni, S., Marchetti, Z., Marchino, L., Marcilio-Silva, V., Marcon, E., Marignani, M., Markesteijn, L., Martin, A., Martínez-Garza, C., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Mašková, T., Mason, K., Mason, N., Massad, T. J., Masse, J., Mayrose, I., McCarthy, J., McCormack, M. L., McCulloh, K., McFadden, I. R., McGill, B. J., McPartland, M. Y., Medeiros, J. S., Medlyn, B., Meerts, P., Mehrabi, Z., Meir, P., Melo, F. P. L., Mencuccini, M., Meredieu, C., Messier, J., Mészáros, I., Metsaranta, J., Michaletz, S. T., Michelaki, C., Migalina, S., Milla, R., Miller, J. E. D., Minden, V., Ming, R., Mokany, K., Moles, A. T., Molnár, A., Molofsky, J., Molz, M., Montgomery, R. A., Monty, A., Moravcová, L., Moreno-Martínez, Á., Moretti, M., Mori, A. S., Mori, S., Morris, D., Morrison, J., Mucina, L., Mueller, S., Muir, C. D., Müller, S. C., Munoz, F., Myers-Smith, I. H., Myster, R. W., Nagano, M., Naidu, S., Narayanan, A., Natesan, B., Negoita, L., Nelson, A. S., Neuschulz, E. L., Ni, J., Niedrist, G., Nieto, J., Niinemets, Ü., Nolan, R., Nottebrock, H., Nouvellon, Y., Novakovskiy, A., Nutrient Network, Nystuen, K. O., O’Grady, A., O’Hara, K., O’Reilly-Nugent, A., Oakley, S., Oberhuber, W., Ohtsuka, T., Oliveira, R., Öllerer, K., Olson, M. E., Onipchenko, V., Onoda, Y., Onstein, R. E., Ordonez, J. C., Osada, N., Ostonen, I., Ottaviani, G., Otto, S., Overbeck, G. E., Ozinga, W. A., Pahl, A. T., Paine, C. E. T., Pakeman, R. J., Papageorgiou, A. C., Parfionova, E., Pärtel, M., Patacca, M., Paula, S., Paule, J., Pauli, H., Pausas, J. G., Peco, B., Penuelas, J., Perea, A., Peri, P. L., Petisco-Souza, A. C., Petraglia, A., Petritan, A. M., Phillips, O. L., Pierce, S., Pillar, V. D., Pisek, J., Pomogaybin, A., Poorter, H., Portsmuth, A., Poschlod, P., Potvin, C., Pounds, D., Powell, A. S., Power, S. A., Prinzing, A., Puglielli, G., Pyšek, P., Raevel, V., Rammig, A., Ransijn, J., Ray, C. A., Reich, P. B., Reichstein, M., Reid, D. E. B., Réjou-Méchain, M., Resco de Dios, V., Ribeiro, S., Richardson, S., Riibak, K., Rillig, M. C., Riviera, F., Robert, E. M. R., Roberts, S., Robroek, B., Roddy, A., Rodrigues, A. V., Rogers, A., Rollinson, E., Rolo, V., Römermann, C., Ronzhina, D., Roscher, C., Rosell, J. A., Rosenfield, M. F., Rossi, C., Roy, D. B., Royer-Tardif, S., Rüger, N., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Rumpf, S. B., Rusch, G. M., Ryo, M., Sack, L., Saldaña, A., Salgado-Negret, B., Salguero-Gomez, R., Santa-Regina, I., Santacruz-García, A. C., Santos, J., Sardans, J., Schamp, B., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schleuning, M., Schmid, B., Schmidt, M., Schmitt, S., Schneider, J. V., Schowanek, S. D., Schrader, J., Schrodt, F., Schuldt, B., Schurr, F., Selaya Garvizu, G., Semchenko, M., Seymour, C., Sfair, J. C., Sharpe, J. M., Sheppard, C. S., Sheremetiev, S., Shiodera, S., Shipley, B., Shovon, T. A., Siebenkäs, A., Sierra, C., Silva, V., Silva, M., Sitzia, T., Sjöman, H., Slot, M., Smith, N. G., Sodhi, D., Soltis, P., Soltis, D., Somers, B., Sonnier, G., Sørensen, M. V., Sosinski, E. E., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Souza, A. F., Spasojevic, M., Sperandii, M. G., Stan, A. B., Stegen, J., Steinbauer, K., Stephan, J. G., Sterck, F., Stojanovic, D. B., Strydom, T., Suarez, M. L., Svenning, J. C., Svitková, I., Svitok, M., Svoboda, M., Swaine, E., Swenson, N., Tabarelli, M., Takagi, K., Tappeiner, U., Tarifa, R., Tauugourdeau, S., Tavsanoglu, C., te Beest, M., Tedersoo, L., Thiffault, N., Thom, D., Thomas, E., Thompson, K., Thornton, P. E., Thuiller, W., Tichý, L., Tissue, D., Tjoelker, M. G., Tng, D. Y. P., Tobias, J., Török, P., Tarin, T., Torres-Ruiz, J. M., Tóthmérész, B., Treurnicht, M., Trivellone, V., Trolliet, F., Trotsiuk, V., Tsakalos, J. L., Tsiripidis, I., Tysklind, N., Umehara, T., Usoltsev, V., Vadeboncoeur, M., Vaezi, J., Valladares, F., Vamosi, J., van Bodegom, P. M., van Breugel, M., Van Cleemput, E., van de Weg, M., van der Merwe, S., van der Plas, F., van der Sande, M. T., van Kleunen, M., Van Meerbeek, K., Vanderwel, M., Vanselow, K. A., Vårhammar, A., Varone, L., Vasquez Valderrama, M. Y., Vassilev, K., Vellend, M., Veneklaas, E. J., Verbeeck, H., Verheyen, K., Vibrans, A., Vieira, I., Villacís, J., Violle, C., Vivek, P., Wagner, K., Waldram, M., Waldron, A., Walker, A. P., Waller, M., Walther, G., Wang, H., Wang, F., Wang, W., Watkins, H., Watkins, J., Weber, U., Weedon, J. T., Wei, L., Weigelt, P., Weiher, E., Wells, A. W., Wellstein, C., Wenk, E., Westoby, M., Westwood, A., White, P. J., Whitten, M., Williams, M., Winkler, D. E., Winter, K., Womack, C., Wright, I. J., Wright, S. J., Wright, J., Pinho, B. X., Ximenes, F., Yamada, T., Yamaji, K., Yanai, R., Yankov, N., Yguel, B., Zanini, K. J., Zanne, A. E., Zelený, D., Zhao, Y. P., Zheng, J., Zheng, J., Ziemińska, K., Zirbel, C. R., Zizka, G., Zo-Bi, I. C., Zotz, G., and Wirth, C. (2020). TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Chang. Biol. , 26, 119–188. Kindt, R. (2020). WorldFlora: an R package for exact and fuzzy matching of plant names against the World Flora Online taxonomic backbone data. Appl. Plant Sci. , 8, e11388. Lancaster, J., Downes, B. J., and Kayll, Z. J. (2024). Bigger is not necessarily better: empirical tests show that dispersal proxies misrepresent actual dispersal ability. Proc. R. Soc. B. , 291, 20240172. Martínez-Gutiérrez, P. G., Martínez-Meyer, E., Palomares, F., and Fernández, N. (2018). Niche centrality and human influence predict rangewide variation in population abundance of a widespread mammal: the collared peccary ( Pecari tajacu ). Divers, Distrib. 24, 103–115. Martins, E.P. (1996). Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Martins, E. P., and Hansen, T. F. (1997). Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. , 149, 646–667. Maurer, B. A., Brown, J. H., and Rusler, R. D. (1992). The micro and macro in body size evolution. Evol. , 46, 939–953. McGill, B. J. (2019). The what, how and why of doing macroecology. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. , 28, 6–17. Moran, P. A. P. (1950). Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika , 37, 17–23. OpenTreeOfLife, Redelings, B., Reyes, L. L. S., Cranston, K. A., Allman, J., Holder, M. T., and McTavish, E. J. (2019a). Open Tree of Life Synthetic Tree. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3937741 OpenTreeOfLife, Cranston, K. A., Redelings, B., Reyes, L. L. S., Allman, J., McTavish, E. J., and Holder, M. T. (2019b). Open Tree of Life Taxonomy. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3937750 Orme, C. D. L., Davies, R. G., Olson, V. A., Thomas, G. H., Ding, T-S., Rasmussen, P. C., Ridgley, R. S., Stattersfield, A. J., Bennet, P. M., Owens, I. P. F., Blackburn, T. M., and Gaston, K. J. (2006). Global patterns of geographic range size in birds. PLoS Biol. , 4, e208. Osorio-Olvera, L., Yañez-Arenas, C., Martínez-Meyer, E., and Townsend, P. A. (2020). Relationships between population densities and niche-centroid distances in North American birds. Ecol. Lett. , 23, 555–564. Owens, I. P. F., and Bennett, P. M. (2000). Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. , 97, 12144–12148. Panter, C. T., Kambach, S., Bachman, S. P., Baines, O., Bruelheide, H., Sporbert, M., Hähn, G., Field, R., and Schrodt, F. (2025). Plants with higher dispersal capabilities follow ‘abundant-centre’ distributions but such patterns remain rare in animals. Nat. Commun. , 16, 8205. Pearse, W. D., Márcia, B. A., Fritz, S. A., Keith, S. A., Harmon, L. J., Harte, J., Silvestro, D., Xiao, X., and Davies, T. J. (2018). Building up biogeography: pattern to process. J. Biogeogr. , 45, 1223–1230. Pérez-Collazos, E., Sanchez-Gómez, P., Jiménez, F., and Catalán, P. (2009). The phylogeographical history of the Iberian steppe plant Ferula loscosii (Apiaceae): a test of the abundant-centre hypothesis. Mol. Ecol. , 18, 848–861. Perez-Lamarque, B., Maliet, O., Pichon, B., Selosse, M-A., Martos, F., and Morlon, H. (2022). Do closely related species interact with similar partners? Testing for phylogenetic signal in bipartite interaction networks. Peer Community J. , 2, e59. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., and R Core Team. (2025). nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package v3.1-168. Available at: CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme Powers, R. P., and Jetz, W. (2019). Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nat. Clim. Chang. , 9, 323–329. QGIS Development Team. (2025). QGIS Geographic Information System. Version 3.14.16. Available at: https://www.qgis.org R Core Team. (2025). R: a language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.4.0). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: www.R-project.org Redelings, B. D., and Holder, M. T. (2017). A supertree pipeline for summarizing phylogenetic and taxonomic information for millions of species. PeerJ , 5, e3058. Revell, L. J. (2024). phytools 2.0: an updated R ecosystem for phylogenetic comparative methods (and other things). PeerJ , 12, e16505. Rivadeneira, M. M., Hernáez, P., Baeza, A. J., Boltaña, S., Cifuentes, M., Correa, C., Cuevas, A., del Valle, E., Hinojosa, I., Ulrich, N., Valdivia, N., Vásquez, N., Zander, A., and Thiel, M. (2010). Testing the abundant-centre hypothesis using intertidal porcelain crabs along the Chilean coast: linking abundance and life-history variation. J. Biogeogr. , 37, 486–498. Rohatgi, A. (2021). WebPlotDigitizer. Version 4.5. Available at: https://automeris.io Roy, K., Hunt, G., Jablonski, D., Krug, A. Z., and Valentine, J. W. (2009). A macroevolutionary perspective on species range limits. Proc. R. Soc. B. , 276, 1485–1493. Sagarin, R. D., and Gaines, S. D. (2002). The ‘abundant centre’ distribution: to what extent is it a biogeographical rule? Ecol. Lett. , 5, 137–147. Santini, L., Pironon, S., Maiorano, L., and Thuiller, W. (2019). Addressing common pitfalls does not provide more support to geographical and ecological abundant-centre hypotheses. Ecography , 42, 696–705. Schoch, C. L., Ciufo, S., Domrachev, M., Hotton, C. L., Kannan, S., Khovanskaya, R., Leipe, D., Mcveigh, R., O’Neill, K., Robbertse, B., Sharma, S., Soussov, V., Sillivan, J. P., Sun, L., Turner, S., and Karsch-Mizrachi, I. (2020). NCBI taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database , 2020, baaa062. Schrodt, F., Kattge, J., Shan, H., Fazayeli, F., Joswig, J., Banerjee, A., Reichstein, M., Bönisch, G., Díaz, S., Dickie, J., Gillison, A., Karpatne, A., Lavorel, S., Leadley, P., Wirth, C. B., Wright, I. J., Wright, S. J., and Reich, P. B. (2015). BHPMF – a hierarchical Bayesian approach to gap-filling and trait prediction for macroecology and functional biogeography. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. , 24, 1510–1521. Seliger, B. J., McGill, B. J., Svenning, J-C., and Gill, J.L. (2020). Widespread underfilling of the potential ranges of North American trees. J. Biogeogr. , 48, 359–371. Shalom, H. Y., Granot, I., Blowes, S. A., Friedlander, A., Mellin, C., Ferreira, C. E. L., Arias-González, J. E., Kulbicki, M., Floeter, S. R., Chabanet, P., Parravicini, V., and Belmaker, J. (2020). A closer examination of the ‘abundant centre’ hypothesis for reef fishes. J. Biogeogr. , 47, 2194–2209. Simpson, G. G. (1984). Tempo and mode in evolution . New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Smyčka, J., Toszogyova, A., and Storch, D. (2023). The relationship between geographic range size and rates of species diversification. Nat. Commun. , 14, 5559. Sporbert, M., Keil, P., Seidler, G., Bruelheide, H., Jandt, U., Aćić, S., Biurrun, I., Campos, J. A., Čarni, A., Chytrý, M., Ćušterevska, R., Dengler, J., Golub, V., Jansen, F., Kuzemko, A., Lenoir, J., Marcenò, C., Moeslund, J. E., Pérez-Haase, A., Rūsiņa, S., Šilc, U., Tsiripidris, I., Vandvik, V., Vasilev, K., Virtanen, R., and Welk, E. (2020). Testing macroecological abundance patterns: the relationship between local abundance and range size, range position and climatic suitability among European vascular plants. J. Biogeogr. , 47, 2210–2222. Stevens, P. F. (2017). Angiosperm phylogeny website. Version 14. Available at: www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb Svenning, J-C., and Skov, F. (2004). Limited filling of the potential range in European tree species. Ecol. Lett. , 7, 565–573. The World Flora Online Consortium, Elliott, A., Hyam, R., Watson, M., Wrankmore, E., Hartley, H., & Flann, C. (2025). World Flora Online Plant List June 2025 . Available at: www.worldfloraonline.org Tobias, J. A., Sheard, C., Pigot, A. L., Devenish, A. J. M., Yang, J., Sayol, F., Neate-Clegg, M. H. C., Alioravainen, N., Weeks, T. L., Barber, R. A., Walkden, P. A., MacGregor, H. E. A., Jones, S. E. I., Vincent, C., Phillips, A. G., Marples, N. M., Montaño-Centellas, F. A., Leandro-Silva, V., Claramunt, S., Darski, B., Freeman, B. G., Bregman, T. P., Cooney, C. R., Hughes, E. C., Capp, E. J. R., Varley, Z. K., Friedman, N. R., Korntheuer, H., Corrales-Vargas, A., Trisos, C. H., Weeks, B. C., Hanz, D. M., Töpfer, T., Bravo, G. A., Remeš, V., Nowak, L., Carneiro, L. S., Moncada R., A. J., Matysioková, B., Baldassarre, D. T., Martínez-Salinas, A., Wolfe, J. D., Chapman, P. M., Daly, B. G., Sorensen, M. C., Neu, A., Ford, M. A., Mayhew, R. J., Silveira, L. F., Kelly, D. J., Annorbah, N. N. D., Pollock, H. S., Grabowska-Zhang, A. M., McEntee, J. P., Gonzalez, J. C. T., Meneses, C. G., Muñoz, M. C., Powell, L. L., Jamie, G. A., Matthews, T. J., Johnson, O., Brito, G. R. R., Zyskowski, K., Crates, R., Harvey, M. G., Jurado Zevallos, M., Hosner, P. A., Bradfer-Lawrence, T., Maley, J. M., Stiles, F. G., Lima, H. S., Provost, K. L., Chibesa, M., Mashao, M., Howard, J. T., Mlamba, E., Chua, M. A. H., Li, B., Gómez, M. I., García, N. C., Päckert, M., Fuchs, J., Ali, J. R., Derryberry, E. P., Carlson, M. L., Urriza, R. C., Brzeski, K. E., Prawiradilaga, D. M., Rayner, M. J., Miller, E. T., Bowie, R. C. K., Lafontaine, R.-M., Scofield, R. P., Lou, Y., Somarathna, L., Lepage, D., Illif, M., Neuschulz, E. L., Templin, M., Dehling, D. M., Cooper, J. C., Pauwels, O. S. G., Analuddin, K., Fjeldså, J., Seddon, N., Sweet, P. R., DeClerck, F. A. J., Naka, L. N., Brawn, J. D., Aleixo, A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Rahbek, C., Fritz, S. A., Thomas, G. H., and Schleuning, M. (2022). AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Ecol. Lett. , 25, 581–597. Tucker, C. M., Cadotte, M. W., Carvalho, S. B., Davies, T. J., Ferrier, S., Fritz, S. A., Grenyer, R., Helmus, M. R., Jin, L. S., Mooers, A. O., Pavoine, S., Purschke, O., Redding, D. W., Rosauer, D. F., Winter, M., and Mazel, F. (2017). A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology. Biol. Rev. , 92, 698–715. Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A., and Jetz, W. (2019). Inferring the mammal tree: species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biol. , 17, e3000494. Virgós, E., Kowalczyk, R., Trua, A., de Marinis, A., Mangas, J. G., Barea-Azcón, J. M., and Geffen, E. (2011). Body size clines in the European badger and the abundant centre hypothesis. J. Biogeogr. , 38, 1546–1556. Waldron, A. (2007). Null models of geographic range size evolution reaffirm its heritability. Am. Nat. , 170, 221–231. Webb, T. J., and Gaston, K. J. (2003). On the heritability of geographic range sizes. Am. Nat. , 161, 553–566. Wen, Z., Ge, D., Feijó, A., Du, Y., Cheng, J., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Xia, L., and Yang, Q. (2021). Varying support for abundance-centre and congeneric-competition hypotheses along elevational transects of mammals. J. Biogeogr. , 48, 616–627. Zacaï, A., Fara, E., Brayard, A., Laffont, R., Dommergues, J-L., and Meister, C. (2017). Phylogenetic conservatism of species range size is the combined outcome of phylogeny and environmental stability. J. Biogeogr. , 44, 2451–2462. Zanne, A. E., Tank, D. C., Cornwell, W. K., Eastman, J. M., Smith, S. A., FitzJohn, R. G. McGlinn, D. J., O-Meara, B. C., Moles, A. T., Reich, P. B., Royer, D. L., Soltis, D. E., Stevens, P. F., Westoby, M., Wright, I. J., Aarssen, L., Bertin, R. I., Calaminus, A., Govaerts, R., Hemmings, F., Leishman, M. R., Oleksyn, J., Soltis, P. S., Swenson, N. G., Warman, L., and Beaulieu, J. M. (2014). Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature , 506, 89–92. Zar, J. H. (2010). Biostatistical analysis . 5 th Edition, Prentice-Hall/Pearson, Upper Saddle River, xiii, pp. 944. TABLES Table 1. Taxonomic clades with significant over-dispersion (↔) or under-dispersion (⋈) of abundance–distance relationships (ADRs), quantified by the standard deviation of Spearman’s rank-based correlation between abundance and distance to range centre. Significance of observed ADR standard deviation (SD) is tested against 90% quantiles from null models with 500 random permutations of species-level ADR values. Plants Order Pinales 0.19 0.1–0.18 Family Pinaceae 0.2 0.09–0.19 Lamiaceae 0.08 0.09–0.19 Papaveraceae 0.03 0.04–0.26 Genus Chamaecyparis 0.4 0.01–0.25 Koeleria 0.31 0.01–0.26 Mammals Genus Tamias 0.68 0.17–0.67 Colobus 0.02 0.04–0.08 Birds Order Procellariiformes 0.35 0.19–0.32 Family Procellariidae 0.36 0.18–0.33 Cardinalidae 0.17 0.18–0.33 Thraupidae 0.31 0.21–0.29 Hirundinidae 0.15 0.17–0.34 Parulidae 0.18 0.21–0.29 Genus Aethia 0.58 0.02–0.52 Acanthis 0.01 0.02–0.54 Anthus 0.4 0.1–0.39 Agelaius 0.01 0.02–0.52 Ardenna 0.37 0.12–0.37 Calcarius 0.02 0.05–0.44 Asthenes 0.65 0.02–0.53 Celeus 0.01 0.01–0.5 Basilinna 0.79 0.01–0.52 Chaetura 0.11 0.12–0.41 Chlorospingus 0.49 0.1–0.4 Eubucco 0 0.01–0.49 Chroicocephalus 0.54 0.05–0.44 Habia 0 0.02–0.5 Conirostrum 0.74 0.02–0.48 Junco 0.03 0.05–0.45 Hemithraupis 0.77 0.02–0.5 Manacus 0.05 0.05–0.46 Mecocerculus 0.53 0.02–0.47 Melospiza 0.03 0.06–0.43 Melanotis 0.52 0.02–0.48 Myzomela 0.04 0.05–0.47 Meleagris 0.5 0.01–0.5 Ochthoeca 0.02 0.02–0.51 Pterodroma 0.4 0.12–0.36 Peucaea 0.05 0.05–0.44 Toxorhamphus 0.62 0.01–0.57 Piranga 0.09 0.11–0.38 Turdus 0.35 0.19–0.32 Polioptila 0.1 0.13–0.38 Selasphorus 0.12 0.12–0.37 Setophaga 0.16 0.18–0.31 Tringa 0.03 0.12–0.39 Tyrannus 0.13 0.14–0.36 Table 2. AIC values for Brownian Motion (BM), Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU), and Early Burst models (EB) of trait evolution in species-level ADR and range size values. Lowest values indicating the best model are highlighted in bold . Plants 114.4 -707.7 116.4 2791.6 2599.5 2793.6 Birds 2041.1 194.0 2013.1 4993.3 3909.9 4995.3 Mammals 414.0 241.4 416.1 600.3 397.8 602.3 Table 3. Parameters estimated for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model of trait evolution for abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) and range sizes. To be comparable across the different datasets, we standardised all trait values and rescaled the summed branch lengths of the corresponding phylogenetic trees to a value of one. Raw Standardised Standardised Standardised Plants ADR -0.06 -0.001 1,089.88 2,183.09 Range size 6.89 0.19 13.15 26.71 Birds ADR -0.04 0 11,669.01 23,321.93 Range size 6.17 0.003 568.34 1,161.15 Mammals ADR 0.02 0.07 (θ 2 ) 84.68 167.73 Range size 6.26 0 (θ 2 ) 953.67 1898.27 Figure 1. Potential effects of allopatric speciation due to physical barriers on observed range sizes and abundance–distance relationships (ADRs, indicated by decreasing colour intensity). Figure 2. Variability in abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) and range sizes across the taxonomic hierarchy. Dots represent observed values and bars show the 90th percentile ranges from 500 permutations, averaged from the species level (left) to increasingly narrower taxonomic clades (right). Panels display results for (a) plant ADRs, (b) plant range sizes, (c) bird ADRs, (d) bird range sizes, (e) mammal ADRs, and (f) mammal range sizes. Figure 3. Variability in abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) and range sizes across the phylogenetic hierarchy. Dots represent observed values and bars show the 90th percentile ranges from 500 permutations, averaged from the species level (left) to increasingly narrower phylogenetic clades (right). Panels display results for (a) plant ADRs, (b) plant range sizes, (c) bird ADRs, (d) bird range sizes, (e) mammal ADRs, and (f) mammal range sizes. Figure 4. Variability in abundance–distance relationships (ADRs) and range sizes across the phylogenetic hierarchy. Dots represent observed values and bars show the 90th percentile ranges from 500 permutations, averaged from the species level (left) to increasingly narrower phylogenetic clades (right). Panels display variability measured with Blomberg’s K and Moran’s I for (a) plant ADRs, (b) plant range sizes, (c) bird ADRs (Blomberg’s K ), (d) bird ADRs (Moran’s I ), (e) mammal ADRs (Blomberg’s K ), and (f) mammal ADRs (Moran’s I ). Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 27 March 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords abundance abundant-centre hypothesis evolutionary history phylogenetic signal trait evolution Authors Affiliations Connor Panter 0000-0002-4017-158X [email protected] University of Nottingham University Park Campus View all articles by this author Stephan Kambach 0000-0003-3585-5837 Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg View all articles by this author Georg Hähn University of Bologna View all articles by this author Helge Bruelheide 0000-0003-3135-0356 Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg View all articles by this author Steven P. Bachman Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew View all articles by this author Maria Sporbert Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg View all articles by this author Richard Field 0000-0003-2613-2688 University of Nottingham View all articles by this author Franziska Shrodt University of Nottingham View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 168 views 80 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Connor Panter, Stephan Kambach, Georg Hähn, et al. Range sizes, but not abundance--distance relationships, are conserved globally across birds, plants, and mammals. Authorea . 27 March 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.177462395.55281737/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.177462395.55281737/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fdebeadbf25593a',t:'MTc3OTE0ODAyMw=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();