Literature DB >> 16396186

Phylogenetic and environmental components of morphological variation: skull, mandible, and molar shape in marmots (Marmota, Rodentia).

Radhekshmi Caumul1, P David Polly.   

Abstract

The phenotype is a product of its phylogenetic history and its recent adaptation to local environments, but the relative importance of the two factors is controversial. We assessed the effects of diet, habitat, elevation, temperature, precipitation, body size, and mtDNA genetic divergence on shape variation in skulls, mandibles, and molars, structures that differ in their genetic and functional control. We asked whether these structures have adapted to environment to the same extent and whether they retain the same amount of phylogenetic signal. We studied these traits in intra- and interspecific populations of Eurasian marmots whose last common ancestor lived 2-5 million years ago. Path Analysis revealed that body size explained 10% of variation in skulls, 7% in mandibles, and 15% in molars. Local vegetation explained 7% of variation in skulls, 11% in mandibles, and 12% in molars. Dietary category explained 25% of variation in skulls, 11% in mandibles, and 9% in molars. Cyt b mtDNA divergence (phylogeny) explained 15% of variation in skulls, 7% in mandibles, and 5% in molars. Despite the percentages of phylogenetic variance, maximum-likelihood trees based on molar and skull shape recovered most phylogenetic groupings correctly, but mandible shape did not. The good performance of molars and skulls was probably due to different factors. Skulls are genetically and functionally more complicated than teeth, and they had more mathematically independent components of variation (5-6-in skulls compared to 3-in molars). The high proportion of diet-related variance was not enough to mask the phylogenetic signal. Molars had fewer independent components, but they also have less ecophenotypic variation and evolve more slowly, giving each component a proportionally stronger phylogenetic signal. Molars require larger samples for each operational taxonomic unit than the other structures because the proportion of within-taxon to between-taxon variation was higher. Good phylogenetic signal in quantitative skeletal morphology is likely to be found only when the taxa have a common ancestry no older than hundreds of thousands or millions of years (1% to 10% mtDNA divergence)--under these conditions skulls and molars provide stronger signal than mandibles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16396186

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  30 in total

Review 1.  Gene networks, occlusal clocks, and functional patches: new understanding of pattern and process in the evolution of the dentition.

Authors:  P David Polly
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 2.634

2.  Evolution of skull shape in the family Salamandridae (Amphibia: Caudata).

Authors:  Ana Ivanović; Jan W Arntzen
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Patterns of Differentiation and Disparity in Cranial Morphology in Rodent Species of the genus Megadontomys (Rodentia: Cricetidae).

Authors:  Rachel M Vallejo; José Antonio Guerrero; Francisco X González-Cózatl
Journal:  Zool Stud       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 2.058

4.  Re-evaluation of Sinocastor (Rodentia: Castoridae) with implications on the origin of modern beavers.

Authors:  Natalia Rybczynski; Elizabeth M Ross; Joshua X Samuels; William W Korth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Neutral evolution of human enamel-dentine junction morphology.

Authors:  Tesla A Monson; Diego Fecker; Marc Scherrer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Morphological variability of the cranium of Lontra longicaudis (Carnivora: Mustelidae): a morphometric and geographic analysis.

Authors:  Pablo César Hernández-Romero; José Antonio Guerrero; Carolina Valdespino
Journal:  Zool Stud       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 2.058

7.  Phylogeny and adaptation shape the teeth of insular mice.

Authors:  Ronan Ledevin; Pascale Chevret; Guila Ganem; Janice Britton-Davidian; Emilie A Hardouin; Jean-Louis Chapuis; Benoit Pisanu; Maria da Luz Mathias; Stefan Schlager; Jean-Christophe Auffray; Sabrina Renaud
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  The Measurement of Local Variation in Shape.

Authors:  Eladio J Márquez; Ryan Cabeen; Roger P Woods; David Houle
Journal:  Evol Biol       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 3.119

9.  Out of Africa: demographic and colonization history of the Algerian mouse (Mus spretus Lataste).

Authors:  Aude Lalis; Stefano Mona; Emmanuelle Stoetzel; François Bonhomme; Karim Souttou; Ali Ouarour; Stéphane Aulagnier; Christiane Denys; Violaine Nicolas
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 3.821

10.  Morphological and phylogeographic evidence for budding speciation: an example in hominins.

Authors:  Caroline Parins-Fukuchi
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 3.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.