The relationship between mammal faunas and climatic instability since the Last Glacial Maximum: A Nearctic vs. Western Palearctic comparison

- The largest concentration of terrestrial mammals is located in climatically stable regions.
- Climatic instability explains geographic range size and body size in Nearctic and Western Palearctic regions.
- The stronger signatures of historical climatic instability are in North American mammals.

Climate has played a key role in shaping the geographic patterns of biodiversity. The imprint of Quaternary climatic fluctuations is particularly evident on the geographic distribution of Holarctic faunas, which dramatically shifted their ranges following the alternation of glacial-interglacial cycles during the Pleistocene. Here, we evaluate the existence of differences between climatically stable and unstable regions - defined on the basis of climatic change velocity since the Last Glacial Maximum - in the geographic distribution of several biological attributes of extant terrestrial mammals of the Nearctic and Western Palearctic regions. Specifically, we use a macroecological approach to assess the dissimilarities in species richness, range size, body size, longevity and litter size of species that inhabit regions with contrasting histories of climatic stability. While several studies have documented how the distributional ranges of animals can be affected by long-term historic climatic fluctuations, there is less evidence on the species-specific traits that determine their responsiveness under such climatic instability. We find that climatically unstable areas have more widespread species and lower mammal richness than stable regions in both continents. We detected stronger signatures of historical climatic instability on the geographic distribution of body size in the Nearctic region, possibly reflecting lagged responses to recolonize deglaciated regions. However, the way that animals respond to climatic fluctuations varies widely among species and we were unable to find a relationship between climatic instability and other mammal life-history traits (longevity and litter size) in any of the two biogeographic regions. We, therefore, conclude that beyond some biological traits typical of macroecological analyses such as geographic range size and body size, it is difficult to infer the responsiveness of species distributions to climate change solely based on particular life-history traits.