Search

We tested for the effects of latitude and geographic range size (GRS) on body size, leg length, and sexual size dimorphism (SSD) across 103 species of fleas, taking into account phylogenetic between‐species relationships. When the data on body size were combined for males and females, the positive correlation between body size and latitude, but not GRS, was revealed. When the analysis was restricted to one sex only, the effect of latitude appeared to be non‐significant for females, whereas male body size increased with an increase in latitude. Intraspecific body size variation was not associated with either the latitude or the latitudinal span of the geographic range, independently of which data subset was analyzed. No evidence of association between size‐independent tibia length and latitude was found for either females, males, or both sexes combined. The degree of SSD decreased with a decrease in latitude but was not affected by GRS. We conclude that macroecological patterns might be manifested differently in males and females. This should be kept in mind while searching for these patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. This study tested the relationships between the probability of pairwise species co‐occurrence and pairwise dissimilarity in their traits in infracommunities (across assemblages harboured by conspecific individual hosts within a locality), component communities (across assemblages harboured by host species within a locality), and compound communities (across assemblages in different localities) of fleas and gamasid mites parasitic on small mammals in Western Siberia. 2. A significant, albeit weak, tendency was found for flea communities harboured by conspecific host individuals, host species, and host communities to be composed of similar species. No relationship between the probability of co‐occurrence and trait dissimilarity was detected for mite communities at any hierarchical scale. 3. For fleas, this study explained the link between positive co‐occurrence and trait dissimilarity by a process resembling environmental filtering realised mainly via host traits for infracommunities and component communities and via off‐host environment for compound communities, thus suggesting that the identical shape of the relationships between co‐occurrence and trait dissimilarity at different scales was driven by different mechanisms. 4. The explanation of the lack of this relationship in mites included: (i) the paucity of the subset of mite traits used in this study and its potential inadequacy for the question at hand; and (ii) possible masking of the effect induced by one trait on co‐occurrence owing to the lack of this effect induced by another trait(s). 5. Caution is recommended regarding the compilation of a dataset involving multiple traits, its analysis, and the interpretation of the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]