| Literature DB >> 27724858 |
Ariel E Marcy1,2, Elizabeth A Hadly3, Emma Sherratt4, Kathleen Garland5, Vera Weisbecker5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High morphological diversity can occur in closely related animals when selection favors morphologies that are subject to intrinsic biological constraints. A good example is subterranean rodents of the genus Thomomys, one of the most taxonomically and morphologically diverse mammalian genera. Highly procumbent, tooth-digging rodent skull shapes are often geometric consequences of increased body size. Indeed, larger-bodied Thomomys species tend to inhabit harder soils. We used geometric morphometric analyses to investigate the interplay between soil hardness (the main extrinsic selection pressure on fossorial mammals) and allometry (i.e. shape change due to size change; generally considered the main intrinsic factor) on crania and humeri in this fast-evolving mammalian clade.Entities:
Keywords: Environmental selection pressure; Evolutionary development; Heterochrony; Incisor procumbency; Parallel evolution; Principal component analysis; Repeated evolution; Subterranean niche
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27724858 PMCID: PMC5057207 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-016-0782-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1Genus Thomomys cladogram. Cladogram of taxa in the Northern California study region (adapted from [20, 21]). Note that T. (M.) bottae canus, despite its species name, is more closely related to T. (M.) townsendii in the T. M. Townsendii clade than to the T. M. Bottae clade taxa. Note that the T. M. Bottae clade is presented as a soft polytomy, and support for internal nodes in the subgenus Thomomys is very low [20]
Fig. 2Methods and analyses summary. Soil data included three indices of conditions contributing to soil hardness: percent clay, bulk density, and linear extensibility (i.e. how much soil hardens when moisture is low); 2D photographs were taken of each specimen a. Landmarks (LMs) and semilandmarks (semi-LMs) were used to capture both homologous points and curves, respectively across the different taxa b. All of our statistical analyses were performed in the R environment using the geometric morphometric package, geomorph c–h. The last figure and table present an interpretative summary of the shape with soil type i
Fig. 3Cranial shape principal component analysis. For all cranial PCs, positive scores correspond with better tooth-digging shapes a–g. Lateral cranial principal component (PC) 1 captures incisor procumbency due to allometry, points for each taxa give their average value along the PC axis a while PC2 appears to capture incisor procumbency related to a shift in incisor root position b. Lateral cranial PCA morphospace for each individual in the dataset c. Ventral cranium view PC1 captures skull robustness d while PC2 differentiates subgenus Megascapheus based on muscle attachment sites on the zygomatic arch as well as the orientation of the foramen magnum e. Ventral cranial PCA morphospace f. Digging mode schematic presents the relative use of tooth- and claw-digging used by taxa in our study region based on the literature and inferences from our shape analyses g
Examining static allometry: MANCOVAs of cranial and humeral shape by size and taxa (Y ~ size*taxa)
| Df | SS | MS | R2 | F | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lateral Cranial Shape | ||||||
| log (size) | 1 | 0.14527 | 0.145267 | 0.20361 | 203.2500 |
|
| taxa | 9 | 0.27228 | 0.030253 | 0.38163 | 42.3282 |
|
| log (size):taxa | 9 | 0.01002 | 0.001113 | 0.01405 | 1.5579 |
|
| residuals | 400 | 0.28589 | 0.000715 | |||
| total | 419 | 0.71345 | ||||
| Ventral Cranial Shape | ||||||
| log (size) | 1 | 0.16758 | 0.167576 | 0.20197 | 222.7192 |
|
| taxa | 9 | 0.32645 | 0.036273 | 0.39346 | 48.2088 |
|
| log (size):taxa | 9 | 0.01063 | 0.001182 | 0.01282 | 1.5703 |
|
| residuals | 432 | 0.32504 | 0.000752 | |||
| total | 451 | 0.82970 | ||||
| Anterior Humeral Shape | ||||||
| log (size) | 1 | 0.004505 | 0.0045052 | 0.07927 | 9.2624 |
|
| taxa | 8 | 0.021335 | 0.0026669 | 0.37536 | 5.4828 |
|
| log (size):taxa | 8 | 0.004246 | 0.0005307 | 0.07470 | 1.0911 | 0.092 |
| residuals | 55 | 0.026752 | 0.0004864 | |||
| total | 72 | 0.056838 | ||||
The effect of centroid size (a proxy for body size) on cranial and humeral shapes within the 10 distinct genus Thomomys taxa as evaluated by MANCOVA (details in methods). Degrees of freedom (Df) for each sums of squares (SS) of each term, model residuals, and the total are presented, along with the coefficient of determination (R2), and the F ratio and associated P value. Statistical significance of the models was evaluated by permutation using 1000 iterations. Bold indicates p-values less than 0.05
Fig. 4Taxa-specific cranial allometric slopes as a function of centroid size. Centroid size is a proxy for body size. a and d show PC1 versus centroid size for lateral and ventral cranial views, respectively. The remaining graphs b, c, e, f use the first principal component of the predicted shape scores from the multivariate regression against log-transformed centroid size (after [53]). The bottom graphs c and f show the variation in allometric slopes within regional subpopulations sufficiently sampled to be comparable to the species and subspecies slopes from b and e, respectively, shown as lines to reduce visual clutter
Post-hoc test for homogeneity of slopes in the lateral cranial dataset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| – | 0.50 | 0.70 |
| 0.40 |
| 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
|
|
| 47.0 | – | 0.70 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.55 | 0.70 |
|
| 62.6 | 59.7 | – | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.65 | 0.35 | 0.80 | 0.55 |
|
| 60.0 | 57.1 | 83.3 | – |
|
|
|
| 0.15 |
|
|
| 49.5 | 57.0 | 67.7 | 76.3 | – |
| 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.15 |
|
|
| 65.4 | 56.5 | 78.9 | 72.7 | 60.5 | – |
|
| 0.15 |
|
|
| 50.3 | 59.1 | 63.1 | 76.0 | 58.9 | 77.1 | – | 0.30 | 0.65 | 0.15 |
|
| 45.3 | 46.6 | 66.6 | 63.6 | 45.4 | 66.5 | 47.4 | – | 0.35 |
|
|
| 64.5 | 60.3 | 64.3 | 76.4 | 68.9 | 67.8 | 58.0 | 61.9 | – | 0.20 |
|
| 61.6 | 44.3 | 67.5 | 69.0 | 63.2 | 66.3 | 64.5 | 55.4 | 69.2 | – |
Post-hoc test table shows the pairwise results testing for homogeneity of slopes (common allometric trajectories). Significance is reported as p-values in the upper triangle and angles (degrees) are reported in the lower triangle. Statistical significance rejecting the null hypothesis of a common slope was evaluated by permutation using 1000 iterations. Bold indicates p-values less than 0.05. Italics indicate p-values between 0.05 and 0.1, suggesting trends for divergence. Taxa are listed in the same order as given by Fig. 1; abbreviations are as follows: maz = T. (T.) mazama, mon = T. (T.) monticola, fis = T. (T.) talpoides fisherii, qua = T. (T.) talpoides quadratus, can = T. (M.) bottae canus, tow = T. (M.) townsendii, lat = T. (M.) bottae laticeps, nav = T. (M.) bottae navus, leu = T. (M.) bottae leucodon, sax = T. (M.) bottae saxatalis
Post-hoc test for ventral cranial allometric slope divergence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| – |
|
| 0.36 |
|
|
|
| 0.65 | 0.19 |
|
| 43.8 | – |
| 0.70 | 0.73 |
|
| 0.17 | 0.55 | 0.23 |
|
| 82.7 | 77.5 | – |
|
|
|
|
| 0.18 |
|
|
| 42.2 | 37.3 | 86.6 | – | 0.34 |
|
| 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.19 |
|
| 46.2 | 32.0 | 86.2 | 42.3 | – |
|
|
| 0.32 | 0.11 |
|
| 78.7 | 62.3 | 91.3 | 69.7 | 53.1 | – |
|
|
|
|
|
| 56.9 | 58.6 | 78.0 | 58.9 | 59.3 | 84.2 | – |
| 0.76 | 0.17 |
|
| 35.7 | 36.1 | 68.2 | 46.0 | 45.2 | 79.1 | 47.6 | – | 0.91 |
|
|
| 41.4 | 45.9 | 69.9 | 52.7 | 49.4 | 76.8 | 44.1 | 32.8 | – | 0.83 |
|
| 41.5 | 42.6 | 79.0 | 48.7 | 44.8 | 72.6 | 49.7 | 40.7 | 39.5 | – |
Post-hoc test table shows the pairwise results testing for homogeneity of slopes (common allometric trajectories). Significance is reported as p-values in the upper triangle and angles (degrees) are reported in the lower triangle. Statistical significance rejecting the null hypothesis of a common slope was evaluated by permutation using 1000 iterations. Bold indicates p-values less than 0.05. Italics indicate p-values between 0.05 and 0.1, suggesting trends for divergence. Taxa abbreviations as in Table 2
Fig. 5Humeral shape principal component analysis. For all humeral PCs, positive scores correspond with more derived tooth-digging shapes a–c. Anterior humeral PC1 shows increased deltoid process size a. PC2 shows increased medial epicondyle size b
Fig. 6The relationship between cranial and humeral shape with soil type. For all cranial and humeral PCs, positive scores correspond with shapes derived for digging in harder soils; convex hulls are colored according to taxonomy (Fig. 1) a–i. Points are colored according to soft, medium, and hard for each soil condition: percent clay a, d, g, bulk density b, e, h and linear extensibility c, f, i with bin categories after Marcy et al. 2013 [27]
Fig. 7Comparisons of claw-digging to tooth-digging taxa in each major clade. Representatives of claw-digging and of tooth-digging, respectively taxa in each major taxonomic clade. Lines on the right of each image give 1 cm scale for each specimen. Lateral cranial views of T. M. Townsendii clade gophers, T. (M.) b. canus, a claw-digging gopher found in heavy but friable soils (see also Table 4) a versus its sister taxa T. (M.) townsendii, a tooth-digging species also found in heavy but friable soils b. Lateral cranial views of T. M. Bottae clade gophers, T. (M.) bottae laticeps, a claw-digging taxa found in friable clay soils c versus its tooth-digging sister subspecies, T. (M.) bottae leucodon, one of the most procumbent taxa in the genus d. Lateral cranial view of subgenus Thomomys gophers, T. (T.) mazama, representing the most ancestral claw-digging condition in very soft soils e versus its sister taxon, T (T.) talpoides quadratus, which tooth-digs in some of the hardest soils in the region f. Ventral cranial views for the same taxa g–l. Anterior humeri views for the same taxa m–r
Summary of interpretation of adaptation strategies given shape, soil, and body size
| Taxa | Soil type occupied | Digging strategy used | Evolutionary comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Soft sandy soil - low clay, bulk density, and linear extensibility; high sand make this relatively easy to dig in | Ancestral claw-digging | Likely illustrates the primitive ancestral condition except in lateral humeral shape. |
|
| Soft sandy soil - lowest clay, bulk density, and linear extensibility; highest sand in the genus | Ancestral claw-digging | Arguably the easiest soil in the region, likely preserves the primitive ancestral condition for the genus. |
|
| Friable clay soil - medium clay but high sand and low bulk density suggests it is not very compacted | Derived tooth-digging despite body size | While still appears to tooth-dig, like sister subspecies below, may be shifting back towards claw-digging in sandier soils |
|
| Hard clayey soil - high clay and very low sand, low bulk density suggests it is not very compacted | Derived tooth-digging despite body size | A combination of allometric and non-allometric cranial rearrangement appears to produce derived tooth-digging shape |
|
| Heavy sandy soil - low clay and high sand suggests the latter drives high bulk density | Claw digging despite body size | Intermediate soil appears to have selected for more for claw-digging adaptations |
|
| Heavy sandy soil - more clay than sister species above but still high sand | Tooth-digging via size-increase alone | In contrast to sister species above, intermediate soil appears to have selected more for tooth-digging adaptations |
|
| Friable clay soil - medium clay but high sand and low bulk density make it easier to manipulate | Claw-digging despite body size | Diverging from the rest of its clade, intermediate soil appears to have selected for claw-digging adaptations |
|
| Friable clay soil - medium clay and medium bulk density but high sand make it easier to manipulate | Derived tooth-digging | In contrast to sister subspecies above, intermediate soil appears to have selected for tooth-digging adaptations |
|
| High clay soil - highest clay and linear extensibility with low sand and low bulk density | Derived tooth-digging | Arguably the hardest soils in the region appear to have selected for both tooth- and claw-digging adaptations |
|
| High clay soil - medium clay and linear extensibility with low sand and high bulk density | Derived tooth-digging | In slight contrast to sister subspecies, hard soils appear to have selected for a slightly more procumbent tooth-digging shape & less emphasis on claw-digging |
Values for soil conditions that impact digging. Percent clay is the part of soil texture that confers plasticity, and in high amounts, makes soil difficult to manipulate. Percent sand is the heaviest part of soil texture, and in high amounts makes soil heavy but easy to break apart. Bulk density is an indicator of soil compaction calculated by the dry weight of soil divided by its volume—it can have high values due to compacted clay, or to a high percent of sand, the heaviest component of soil texture. Linear extensibility, a property of certain kinds of clay, quantifies the shrink-swell capacity of soil. This property causes soils to harden when dry, warm climatic conditions reduce the effective moisture in the soil