z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Amphibians live longer at higher altitudes but not at higher latitudes
Author(s) -
ZHANG LIXIA,
LU XIN
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
biological journal of the linnean society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.906
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1095-8312
pISSN - 0024-4066
DOI - 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01876.x
Subject(s) - biology , longevity , amphibian , ecology , avian clutch size , life history theory , latitude , range (aeronautics) , altitude (triangle) , energetics , zoology , life history , reproduction , mathematics , geodesy , geography , geometry , genetics , materials science , composite material
Why and how organisms differ in life‐history strategies across their range is a long‐standing topic of interest to evolutionary ecologists. Although many studies have addressed this issue for several life‐history traits, such as body size and clutch size, very few have been made for some others traits, including longevity. In the present study, we performed a comparative study aiming to develop general patterns of geographical variation in longevity of urodele and anuran amphibians using published information on demographic age derived from skeletochronology. We conducted within‐species meta‐analyses using datasets of two (ten urodele and 12 anuran species) and multiple (two urodele and nine anuran species) spatially‐separated populations and found that maturation, mean, and maximum age all increased with altitude but not with latitude in each sex of both amphibian groups. This geographical pattern held true across 33 urodele and 86 anuran species at common body sizes, independent of phylogeny. It is likely that metabolic rate, reproductive investment, and mortality risk, which are the key factors that affect longevity as suggested by ageing theory, vary systemically along altitudinal gradients but not along latitudinal gradients. The evolutionary causes behind these puzzling patterns deserve further investigation. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2012, 106 , 623–632.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here