| Literature DB >> 34506601 |
Kiana Christensen1, Keegan M Melstrom1,2.
Abstract
Squamates are ideal subjects for investigating relationships between diet and dental patterns because they exhibit wide dietary diversity, marked variation in dental shape, and are taxonomically abundant. Despite this, well-established links between diet and dental morphology are primarily qualitative in nature, with specific patterns of squamate dental complexity remaining largely unknown. Here, we use quantitative methods and a broad taxonomic dataset to quantify key patterns in squamate dental morphology, including re-examining the relationship between dentition and diet, testing for differences in complexity between dentigerous elements, and exploring the effect of ontogenetic dietary shifts in dental complexity in two iguanid genera. Our findings support previous research by demonstrating that species consuming more plant material possess more complex teeth. We did not find significant complexity differences between the left and right dentigerous elements nor the upper and lower jaws, with the exception of Amblyrhynchus cristatus, the marine iguana, which possesses significantly more complex dentary teeth than premaxillary and maxillary teeth. We find discordant patterns when testing for dental complexity changes through ontogeny. Amblyrhynchus, which is primarily herbivorous throughout its lifetime, increases dental complexity through ontogeny, whereas Ctenosaura, which is generally insectivorous as juveniles and herbivorous as adults, decreases dental complexity. Although preliminary, this research documents and quantifies novel patterns of squamate dental complexity and exhibits the possibilities for further research on the diversity of squamate dental morphology.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34506601 PMCID: PMC8432827 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Information of specimens used in this study including identification, avgOPCR per tooth of all included elements, diet classification, percentage of plant material in diet, total number of teeth in specimen, and elements included in OPCR calculation.
| Name | Specimen no. | Avg. OPCR | Diet | % plant in diet | # of teeth | Elements included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMNH 15073 | 18.780 | Herbivore | 100 | 71 | All | |
| FMNH 22042 | 18.458 | Herbivore | 100 | 52 | RD, LM, RM | |
| AMNH 31700 | 17.129 | Herbivore | 100 | 18 | LD, LM | |
| AMNH 75942 | 17.190 | Herbivore | 100 | 32 | LD, LM | |
| AMNH 31591 | 17.736 | Herbivore | 100 | 32 | LD, LM | |
| FMNH 15072 | 14.036 | Herbivore | 100 | 34 | LD, LM | |
| FMNH 22100 | 13.485 | Herbivore | 100 | 18 | LM, RM | |
| FMNH 13547 | 15.762 | Herbivore | 100 | 82 | All | |
| FMNH 22094 | 18.980 | Herbivore | 100 | 71 | All | |
| UF 47686 | 8.6294 | Insectivore | ? | 80 | All | |
| FMNH 98363 | 9.7474 | Insectivore | 8.76 | 44 | LD, RD | |
| FMNH 98361 | 9.9243 | Insectivore | 8.76 | 84 | All | |
| CAS 254912 | 6.8728 | Insectivore | – | 62 | All | |
| AMNH 57408 | 9.8898 | Omnivore | 86.4 | 57 | LD, LM | |
| AMNH R-147855 | 7.1916 | Omnivore | 86.4 | 15 | LM | |
| AMNH R-71837 | 8.1309 | Herbivore | 100 | 21 | LM | |
| FMNH 6175 | 8.0932 | Herbivore | 98 | 55 | LM, LD, RD | |
| FMNH 211849 | 14.108 | Herbivore | 98 | 92 | All | |
| AMNH 69627 | 8.7142 | Herbivore | 98 | 90 | All | |
| AMNH 38949 | 11.847 | Herbivore | 98 | 27 | LD | |
| FMNH 98370 | 12.115 | – | – | 38 | LD, RD | |
| FMNH 22103 | 10.977 | – | – | 51 | LD, RD | |
| FMNH 211835 | 8.2734 | – | – | 48 | LD, RD | |
| FMNH 98371 | 13.250 | – | – | 24 | LD | |
| FMNH 249786 | 13.011 | Herbivore | 97.3 | 78 | All | |
| FMMH 98376 | 11.387 | Herbivore | 97.3 | 41 | LM, RM | |
| FMNH 98377 | 11.060 | Herbivore | 97.3 | 71 | All | |
| UF 61535 | 8.9768 | Insectivore | – | 76 | All | |
| UF 153328 | 4.3855 | Carnivore | – | 24 | RM, LD, RD | |
| AMNH R-140825 | 7.8736 | ? | ? | 34 | LD, RD | |
| FMNH 14952 | 10.501 | Herbivore | ? | 43 | All | |
| FMNH 236131 | 10.131 | – | – | 42 | All | |
| FMNH 22291 | 8.8526 | Herbivore | 100 | 34 | LM, RM | |
| FMNH 51680 | 10.017 | Herbivore | 100 | 100 | LM, LD, RD | |
| FMNH 22492 | 7.6949 | Herbivore | 100 | 78 | All | |
| UF 16268 | 4.2324 | ? | – | 24 | RM, LD, RD | |
| UF 60925 | 7.7160 | Carnivore | – | 58 | All | |
| UF 71411 | 4.0979 | Carnivore | – | 42 | All | |
| UF 51438 | 5.4313 | Insectivore | – | 78 | All |
Abbreviations: right premaxilla and maxilla (RM), left premaxilla and maxilla (LM), right dentary (RD), left dentary (LD), diet not found in previous literature (?), level of species unidentified so diet could not be determined (–).
Statistical analysis comparing OPCR-values between dietary categories.
| Diets compared | Statistical test | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herbivore, Insectivore, Carnivore | Kruskal–Wallace |
| Significant |
| Herbivore vs. Insectivore | Mann–Whitney |
| Significant |
| Herbivore vs. Carnivore | Mann–Whitney |
| Significant |
| Insectivore vs. Carnivore | Mann–Whitney | Not Significant |
The Kruskal–Wallace test compared multiple dietary categories, and the Mann–Whitney U test compared two dietary categories to each other. A P-value of less than .05 is considered significant (bolded). Omnivores were not compared because only two omnivorous specimens were sampled.
Fig 1Calculated range of average dental complexities for four dietary groups.
The median is represented by a horizontal line within each box and the mean is designated by the small circle. Boxes encompass the exclusive median. The range is represented by the upper and lower short horizontal lines. Individuals with an unknown diet or unknown species identification are not included. n represents the number of species included in each dietary category.
Fig 2Observed range of dental complexity for six genera.
A) Average OPCR of upper tooth row compared to lower tooth row; B) Average OPCR of left premaxilla and maxilla compared to right premaxilla and maxilla; C) Average OPCR of left dentary compared to right dentary. Average OPCR is calculated at 25 RPT and standardized for the number of teeth included in each element. Median is represented by a horizontal line, mean is represented by a circle, and range is represented by upper and lower short horizontal lines. Boxes encompass the exclusive median.
Comparisons of element complexity in Ctenosaura and Amblyrhynchus using average OPCR-values of each element.
| Genus | Premaxilla and Maxilla vs. Dentary | Left vs. Right Premaxilla and Maxilla | Left vs. Right Dentary |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.12 | – | 0.26 |
|
|
| 0.89 | 0.64 |
A P-value of less than .05 is significant (bolded).
Fig 3Trendlines displaying the relationship between skull length and dental complexity (avgOPCR) in two genera.
A) The correlation between skull length and average OPCR for nine Amblyrhynchus cristatus specimens. B) The relationship between skull length and average OPCR for ten Ctenosaura specimens. The blue trend line includes all Ctenosaura species whereas the black trendline excludes C. hemilopha specimen.
Fig 4Dentigerous elements and OPCR maps of three Amblyrhynchus cristatus specimens with increasing skull length.
A) Specimen FMNH 22100 with 21.6 mm SVL; B) Specimen AMNH 31591 with 45 mm SVL; C) Specimen FMNH 15073 with 58.9 mm SVL. Increasing SVL generally corresponds to larger teeth with more defined cusps. Scale bar equals 5 mm. OPCR maps show the occlusal view of the left upper tooth row and lower tooth row.