Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Brief Report

Plants obey (and disobey) the island rule

View ORCID ProfileM. Biddick, A. Hendriks, and K. C. Burns
  1. aSchool of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6012, New Zealand

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS September 3, 2019 116 (36) 17632-17634; first published August 19, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907424116
M. Biddick
aSchool of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6012, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for M. Biddick
  • For correspondence: matt.biddick@vuw.ac.nz
A. Hendriks
aSchool of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6012, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. C. Burns
aSchool of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6012, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Douglas Futuyma, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, and approved July 25, 2019 (received for review April 29, 2019)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The island rule predicts that small animals evolve to become larger on islands, while large animals evolve to become smaller. It has been studied for over half a century, and its validity is fiercely debated. Here, we provide a perspective on the debate by conducting a test of the island rule in plants. Results from an extensive dataset on islands in the southwest Pacific illustrate that plant stature and leaf area obey the island rule, but seed size does not. Our results indicate that the island rule may be more pervasive than previously thought and that support for its predictions varies among functional traits.

  • functional trait
  • insular dwarfism
  • insular gigantism
  • size diversity
  • size evolution

The island rule, a graded trend from gigantism in small species to dwarfism in large species on islands, is a controversial issue in biogeography (1, 2). While many studies have found support for its predictions (2⇓⇓⇓⇓–7), other studies have not (8⇓⇓⇓⇓–13), leading to widespread debate over its validity (14). Although studied for over 50 y, previous tests have been limited to animals, and predominantly to particular groups of vertebrates.

Mechanistically, several factors are thought to drive the convergence of body size on islands (3). For example, competition in species-rich mainland communities is thought to drive phenotypic divergence in order to promote coexistence (15). On islands, which tend to be more species-poor than mainlands, selection for phenotypic divergence is relaxed, leading to reduced size diversity. Given that these factors are not exclusive to animals, they might drive convergence in the size of other life groups.

Darwin (16) noted that many island trees are derived from continental herbs. He reasoned that herbaceous plants evolve woodiness on islands because of selection for increased stature, which improves their capacity to compete for light. Molecular tools have since demonstrated the convergent evolution of woodiness in the Canary (17, 18), Madeiran (19), and Hawaiian (20) floras. However, a unidirectional evolutionary pathway toward insular woodiness (and consequently increased stature) is not always observed (21, 22), and no previous study has tested for the island rule in plants.

We provide a test of the island rule in plants. We collected data on plant stature, leaf area, and seed size in 175 taxonomic pairings inhabiting 10 isolated archipelagos. Data were derived from field measurements, herbarium specimens, and flora descriptions from islands spanning 13 degrees of latitude of the southwest Pacific, to test whether small plants evolve to become larger on islands and large plants evolve to become smaller.

Results

We compiled 175 taxonomic pairings from 10 archipelagos surrounding the New Zealand “mainland” (Fig. 1A and Dataset S1). Linear regression revealed a graded trend from gigantism to dwarfism in both stature (Fig. 1B; T = −5.097, degree of freedom [df] = 93, P < 0.001) and leaf area (Fig. 1C; T = −4.910, df = 131, P < 0.001). Mixed effects models confirmed that these trends were robust after controlling for degree of taxonomic differentiation, growth form, collection method, and phylogenetic morphological conservatism (T = −6.131, P = 0.026; T = −4.044, P < 0.001, respectively). Paired t tests revealed that island values of stature and leaf area were not consistently larger or smaller than mainland values (T = 0.271, df = 95, P = 0.787; T = 0.226, df = 132, P = 0.821, respectively). Conversely, changes in seed size were ungraded (Fig. 1D; T = 0.994, df = 92, P = 0.333) even after controlling for potentially confounding factors (T = 0.778, P = 0.444). Island seed sizes were, instead, predominantly larger than mainland seed sizes (T = 4.051, df = 93, P < 0.001).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

(A) The island rule was tested in plants inhabiting islands in the southwest Pacific, whose floras are primarily derived from the New Zealand “mainland.” (B and C) Insular size changes (Si, y axis) vary as a function of mainland values (x axis) in (B) stature (n = 96) and (C) leaves (n = 134). (D) Changes in seed size are unrelated to mainland values (n = 94). A dashed horizontal line intercepting the y axis at zero denotes morphological isometry. Both axes are logarithm-transformed. Open circles denote single island–mainland pairings.

Discussion

Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that plants, like animals, evolve in consistent ways on islands (23). Many previous studies on animals have documented support for the island rule (3⇓⇓⇓–7, 24, 25), while others have failed to find support for its predictions (8⇓⇓⇓–12). Here, we show that plants both obey and disobey the island rule, depending on the plant functional trait in question.

Plant stature and leaf area both obey the island rule. Therefore, they may have a single mechanistic explanation, if one trait covaries allometrically with the other. Previous work on animals has linked the island rule to a variety of factors, including insular changes in competitors, predators, or environmental conditions (3, 4). The same ecological mechanisms could drive the evolutionary convergence of size in island plants. On the other hand, given the physiological differences between animals and plants, other processes might be at work.

This would not appear to be the case with seed size, as it disobeys the island rule. Instead, it exhibits a consistent tendency toward gigantism, a phenomenon that has been documented elsewhere and is thought to arise for reasons related to dispersal ability (i.e., reduced mortality at sea, ref. 16, but see ref. 26). Alternatively, islands house fewer species at greater densities than mainlands (27). Therefore, a selection for larger (and consequently more competitive) seeds could arise from greater levels of competition among conspecifics.

Future work on island plants may provide a unique window into the processes responsible for the island rule. Plants can be collected, transported, and manipulated more easily than animals. They can be grown under different environmental conditions, subjected to different herbivores in cafeteria-style experiments, and planted in competitive arrays. Therefore, future tests of the island rule in plants may help inform the debate over whether animals obey (or disobey) the island rule.

Methods and Materials

Data Collection.

We integrated data from published literature, flora descriptions, herbarium specimens, and field measurements (Dataset S1). We extracted data from 4 studies that share similar methodologies and were carried out by the same working group (28⇓⇓–31). These studies predominantly investigated size changes in taxonomically undifferentiated and partially differentiated island–mainland pairings. To include more taxonomically differentiated taxa, we used published molecular phylogenies to identify island endemics in the southwest Pacific that result from anagenesis following a single colonization event. When no phylogeny was available, geographic proximity was used as a surrogate for genetic relatedness. Stature, leaf area, and seed size values were then extracted from flora descriptions. We systematically extracted the greatest value for stature and the mean value for leaves and seeds. When only a single metric of size was available (e.g., length without width), the same metric was extracted for the respective comparison, such that trait metrics were always kept consistent within pairings. When trait values were unavailable, images of specimens were sourced from online herbaria and measured in ImageJ (32). Field measurements of a further 13 pairings from Tuhua Island were collected following the methodology of Biddick et al. (28). Mainland measurements were taken from the Kaimai-Mamaku Forest Reserve, which occupies the same ecological district and latitudinal band as Tuhua Island.

Data Analysis.

Following Lomolino et al. (4), we first performed linear regressions of log(Si [island value divided by mainland value]) against log(M [mainland value]). Paired t tests were then used to test whether island values were consistently larger or smaller than mainland values. We utilized linear mixed effects models to control for factors that might obscure island rule trends. Because Si should vary with degree of taxonomic differentiation, we included taxonomic differentiation as a fixed effect with 3 levels (fully differentiated, partially differentiated, and undifferentiated). The partially differentiated level included both subspecies and varieties. Because M values should differ between woody and herbaceous plants, we included growth form as a fixed factor with 2 levels (woody and nonwoody). Species occur multiple times in the dataset; therefore, species identity was included as a random effect. To control for phylogenetic morphological conservatism, taxonomic family was included as a random effect. To control for variation related to collection method, collection method was included as a random effect.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: matt.biddick{at}vuw.ac.nz.
  • Author contributions: M.B. and K.C.B. designed research; M.B. and A.H. performed research; M.B. analyzed data; and M.B. and K.C.B. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1907424116/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

References

  1. ↵
    1. L. Van Valen
    , A new evolutionary law. Evol. Theory 1, 1–30 (1973).
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. M. V. Lomolino
    , Body size of mammals on islands: The island rule reexamined. Am. Nat. 125, 310–316 (1985).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. M. V. Lomolino
    , Body size evolution in insular vertebrates: Generality of the island rule. J. Biogeogr. 32, 1683–1699 (2005).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. M. V. Lomolino et al
    ., Of mice and mammoths: Generality and antiquity of the island rule. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1427–1439 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. S. M. Clegg,
    2. I. P. Owens
    , The ‘island rule’ in birds: Medium body size and its ecological explanation. Proc. Biol. Sci. 269, 1359–1365 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. L. Nolfo-Clements,
    2. R. Butcher,
    3. M. Leite,
    4. M. Clements
    , Evidence of the island rule and microevolution in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in an urban harbor archipelago. Mammal Res. 62, 423–430 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. J. J. Welch
    , Testing the island rule: Primates as a case study. Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 675–682 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Y. Itescu,
    2. N. E. Karraker,
    3. P. Raia,
    4. P. C. Pritchard,
    5. S. Meiri
    , Is the island rule general? Turtles disagree. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 689–700 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Y. Itescu et al
    ., Inconsistent patterns of body size evolution in co-occurring island reptiles. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 538–550 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. S. Meiri,
    2. N. Cooper,
    3. A. Purvis
    , The island rule: Made to be broken? Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 141–148 (2008).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. S. Meiri,
    2. T. Dayan,
    3. D. Simberloff
    , The generality of the island rule reexamined. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1571–1577 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. S. Meiri,
    2. T. Dayan,
    3. D. Simberloff,
    4. R. Grenyer
    , Life on the edge: Carnivore body size variation is all over the place. Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 1469–1476 (2009).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. R. Rebouças,
    2. H. R. da Silva,
    3. M. Solé
    , Frog size on continental islands of the coast of Rio de Janeiro and the generality of the Island Rule. PLoS One 13, e0190153 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. S. Lokatis,
    2. J. M. Jeschke
    , The island rule: An assessment of biases and research trends. J. Biogeogr. 45, 289–303 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. T. Dayan,
    2. D. Simberloff,
    3. E. Tchernov,
    4. Y. Yom-Tov
    , Feline canines: Community-wide character displacement among the small cats of Israel. Am. Nat. 136, 39–60 (1990).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. C. Darwin
    , On the Origin of Species, 1859 (Routledge, 2004).
  17. ↵
    1. F. Lens,
    2. N. Davin,
    3. E. Smets,
    4. M. del Arco
    , Insular woodiness on the Canary Islands: A remarkable case of convergent evolution. Int. J. Plant Sci. 174, 992–1013 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. U.-R. Böhle,
    2. H. H. Hilger,
    3. W. F. Martin
    , Island colonization and evolution of the insular woody habit in Echium L. (Boraginaceae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 11740–11745 (1996).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. J. L. Panero,
    2. J. Francisco-Ortega,
    3. R. K. Jansen,
    4. A. Santos-Guerra
    , Molecular evidence for multiple origins of woodiness and a new world biogeographic connection of the Macaronesian Island endemic Pericallis (Asteraceae: Senecioneae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 13886–13891 (1999).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. S. J. Carlquist,
    2. B. G. Baldwin,
    3. G. D. Carr
    , Tarweeds & Silverswords: Evolution of the Madiinae (Asteraceae) (Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 2003).
  21. ↵
    1. K. Burns
    , Size changes in island plants: Independent trait evolution in Alyxia ruscifolia (Apocynaceae) on Lord Howe Island. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 119, 847–855 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. H. Tsukaya,
    2. R. Imaichi,
    3. J. Yokoyama
    , Leaf-shape variation of Paederia foetida in Japan: Reexamination of the small, narrow leaf form from Miyajima Island. J. Plant Res. 119, 303–308 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. K. C. Burns
    , Evolution in Isolation: The Search for an Island Syndrome in Plants (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
  24. ↵
    1. L. Bromham,
    2. M. Cardillo
    , Primates follow the ‘island rule’: Implications for interpreting Homo floresiensis. Biol. Lett. 3, 398–400 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. C. R. McClain,
    2. A. G. Boyer,
    3. G. Rosenberg
    , The island rule and the evolution of body size in the deep sea. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1578–1584 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. K. Burns
    , Time to abandon the loss of dispersal ability hypothesis in island plants: A comment on García‐Verdugo, Mairal, Monroy, Sajeva and Caujapé‐Castells (2017). J. Biogeogr. 45, 1219–1222 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. R. H. MacArthur,
    2. J. M. Diamond,
    3. J. R. Karr
    , Density compensation in island faunas. Ecology 53, 330–342 (1972).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. M. Biddick,
    2. I. Hutton,
    3. K. C. Burns
    , Independent evolution of allometric traits: A test of the allometric constraint hypothesis in island vines. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 126, 203–211 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. K. C. Burns,
    2. N. Herold,
    3. B. Wallace
    , Evolutionary size changes in plants of the south‐west Pacific. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 819–828 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. B. T. M. Cox,
    2. K. C. Burns
    , Convergent evolution of gigantism in the flora of an isolated archipelago. Evol. Ecol. 31, 741–752 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. P. H. Kavanagh,
    2. K. C. Burns
    , The repeated evolution of large seeds on islands. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, 20140675 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. C. A. Schneider,
    2. W. S. Rasband,
    3. K. W. Eliceiri
    , NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Plants obey (and disobey) the island rule
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Plants obey (and disobey) the island rule
M. Biddick, A. Hendriks, K. C. Burns
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2019, 116 (36) 17632-17634; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1907424116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Plants obey (and disobey) the island rule
M. Biddick, A. Hendriks, K. C. Burns
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2019, 116 (36) 17632-17634; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1907424116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Ecology

This article has a Letter. Please see:

  • Relationship between Research Article and Letter - November 26, 2019

See related content:

  • Reply to Brian and Walker-Hale: Support for the island rule does not hide morphological disparity in insular plants
    - Nov 26, 2019
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (36)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Methods and Materials
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
Cave in coastal Kenya with tree growing in the middle.
Journal Club: Small, sharp blades mark shift from Middle to Later Stone Age in coastal Kenya
Archaeologists have long tried to define the transition between the two time periods.
Image credit: Ceri Shipton.
Mouse fibroblast cells. Electron bifurcation reactions keep mammalian cells alive.
Exploring electron bifurcation
Jonathon Yuly, David Beratan, and Peng Zhang investigate how electron bifurcation reactions work.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490