| Literature DB >> 34561489 |
Juan D Carvajal-Castro1,2, Fernando Vargas-Salinas3, Santiago Casas-Cardona3, Bibiana Rojas4,5, Juan C Santos6.
Abstract
Many organisms have evolved adaptations to increase the odds of survival of their offspring. Parental care has evolved several times in animals including ectotherms. In amphibians, ~ 10% of species exhibit parental care. Among these, poison frogs (Dendrobatidae) are well-known for their extensive care, which includes egg guarding, larval transport, and specialized tadpole provisioning with trophic eggs. At least one third of dendrobatids displaying aposematism by exhibiting warning coloration that informs potential predators about the presence of defensive skin toxins. Aposematism has a central role in poison frog diversification, including diet specialization, and visual and acoustic communication; and it is thought to have impacted their reproductive biology as well. We tested the latter association using multivariate phylogenetic methods at the family level. Our results show complex relationships between aposematism and certain aspects of the reproductive biology in dendrobatids. In particular, aposematic species tend to use more specialized tadpole-deposition sites, such as phytotelmata, and ferry fewer tadpoles than non-aposematic species. We propose that aposematism may have facilitated the diversification of microhabitat use in dendrobatids in the context of reproduction. Furthermore, the use of resource-limited tadpole-deposition environments may have evolved in tandem with an optimal reproductive strategy characterized by few offspring, biparental care, and female provisioning of food in the form of unfertilized eggs. We also found that in phytotelm-breeders, the rate of transition from cryptic to aposematic phenotype is 17 to 19 times higher than vice versa. Therefore, we infer that the aposematism in dendrobatids might serve as an umbrella trait for the evolution and maintenance of their complex offspring-caring activities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34561489 PMCID: PMC8463664 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97206-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Ancestral reconstruction of coloration, tadpole deposition site and sex of tadpole carrier in Dendrobatidae. Illustrations by MJ Tovar-Gil, AM Ospina-L and DL Rivera-Robles. Figure was created using R software version 4.0.3 (https://www.r-project.org/) and modified using Adobe Illustrator version 15.1.0 (https://www.adobe.com/).
Parental care traits in dendrobatid species considered to be aposematic. The symbol “–” denotes unknown data.
| Trait | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 17 | 5 | 29 | 7 | |
| 23.727 ± 8.471 (3) | 15.617 ± 2.128 (11) | 32.525 ± 6.408 (4) | 20.695 ± 5.133 (3) | 14 (1) | 25.639 ± 6.05 (8) | 16.09 ± 1.436 (16) | 29.54 ± 8.89 (5) | 24.55 ± 5.13 (25) | 17.75 ± 1.71 (7) | |
| 26.16 ± 8.606 (3) | 16.117 ± 2.344 (11) | 35.975 ± 7.514 (4) | 22.103 ± 5.781 (3) | 16 (1) | 25.759 ± 5.507 (8) | 17.454 ± 1.506 (16) | 32.48 ± 8.50 (5) | 27.46 ± 6.03 (25) | 19.05 ± 2.19 (6) | |
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 17 | 5 | 27 | 7 | |
| Near streams | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Far streams | 3 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 17 | 5 | 27 | 7 |
| 5.633 ± 3.925 (3) | 2.425 ± 1.15 (4) | 5.4 ± 1.451 (4) | 8 ± (1) | 6 (1) | 6.43 ± 2.526 (8) | 3.009 ± 1.46 (14) | 15.8 ± 2.95 (5) | 18.43 ± 10.18 (16) | 17.75 ± 6.34 (4) | |
| 2.4 ± (1) | 3.75 ± 2.475(2) | 7 ± 2.309 (4) | – | – | 5.333 ± 1.538 (6) | 3.464 ± 1.595 (11) | 18.87 ± 7.59 (4) | 18.53 ± 8.02 (7) | 19.37 ± 3.73 (4) | |
| – | 2.49 ± 0.875 (3) | 3.495 ± 0.816 (4) | 1.35 ± (1) | – | 1.506 ± 0.403 (5) | 1.783 ± 0.409 (7) | 2.33 ± 0.29 (3) | 2.26 ± 0.77 (9) | 1.33 ± 0.09 (4) | |
| 14.94 ± (1) | 12.586 ± 3.871 (6) | 14.096 ± 3.106 (4) | 14.987 ± 4.255 (3) | 11.796 (1) | 10.156 ± 0.791 (6) | 14.41 ± 3.032 (13) | 11.41 ± 1.16 (4) | 12.93 ± 1.95 (15) | 10.57 ± 1.49 (6) | |
| 1 ± 0 (3) | 1.45 ± 0.369 (10) | 1.75 ± 0.289 (4) | 1.5 ± 0 (2) | 2 (1) | 1.016 ± 0.044 (8) | 1.346 ± 0.718 (13) | 5.87 ± 1.88 (5) | 11.61 ± 6.75 (19) | 8.52 ± 4.41 (7) | |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Present | 1 | 1 | 4 | – | 3 | 6 | 6 | – | – | |
| Absent | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 17 | 7 | |||
| ♂ | – | 6 | 4 | 2 | – | – | 5 | 17 | 7 | |
| ♀ | – | – | – | – | 8 | 11 | – | – | – | |
| Both | – | – | – | – | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | |
| None | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 14 | 5 | 19 | 7 | |
| ♂ | 3 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | – | 14 | 5 | 17 | 7 |
| ♀ | – | – | – | – | – | 8 | – | – | 2 | – |
| Both | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – |
| None | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 1 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 16 | 5 | – | 7 | |
| Phytotelmata | 1 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 16 | 5 | – | – |
| Non–phytotelmata | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 17 | 7 |
| 2.702 ± 0.219 (3) | 2.452 ± 0.293 (11) | 2.449 ± 0 (4) | 1.966 ± 0.837 (3) | 2.646 (1) | 2.449 ± 0 (8) | 2.525 ± 0.198 (17) | 2.53 ± 0.11 (5) | 2.51 ± 0.24 (26) | 2.51 ± 0.54 (7) | |
| – | 6.217 ± 0.978 (2) | 7.179 ± 0.234 (3) | – | – | 7.152 ± 0.222 (5) | 6.909(1) | 5.52 ± 0 (3) | 6.91 ± 0 (4) | 6.91 ± 0 (2) | |
Parental care traits in dendrobatid species considered to be non-aposematic. The symbol “–“ corresponds to unknown data. aConspicuousness and alkaloids scores are described in the methods section; *These species are nidicolous. Vales are reported as mean ± SD (number of data).
| Trait | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | 25 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 40 | 10 | 17 | 1 | 3 | 5 | |
|
♂ | 18.94 ± 3.51 (43) | 18.45 ± 2.29 (17) | 25.54 ± 8.33 (10) | 23.81 ± 4.99 (5) | 20.33 (1) | 21.21 ± 3.68 (34) | 20.62 ± 1.60 (5) | 24.05 ± 4.77 (17) | 21 (1) | 31.4 ± 5.3 (2) | 16.71 ± 0.84 (4) |
|
♀ | 19.57 ± 3.32 (42) | 20.74 ± 3.43 (15) | 28.87 ± 10.19 (10) | 25.62 ± 3.68 (6) | 23.6 ± 1.41 (2) | 23.31 ± 3.99 (34) | 22.12 ± 1.89 (6) | 27.71 ± 5.22 (17) | 23.7 (1) | 35.1 (1) | 18.67 ± 1.72 (5) |
| 42 | 18 | 10 | 7 | – | 33 | 5 | 17 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |
| Near from Stream | – | 8 | – | 3 | – | 21 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 2 | – |
| Far from Stream | 42 | 8(2b) | 10 | 4 | – | 12 | 4 | – | – | – | 5 |
| 16.63 ± 9.57 (21) | 4.59 ± 1.79 (6) | – | 25 (1) | – | 16.28 ± 7.64 (12) | 16.5 ± 3.53 (2) | 18.42 ± 10.39 (4) | – | 23.5 (1) | – | |
| 16.39 ± 9.82 (13) | 4 ± 1.41 (2) | – | – | – | 21.01 ± 11.37 (11) | 22 ± 4.24 (2) | 11.44 ± 1.78 (2) | – | 23.5 (1) | – | |
| 1.69 ± 0.5 (15) | 2.6 ± 0.94 (4) | 1.5 (1) | 1.7 ± 0.14 (2) | 2.5 (1) | 2.04 ± 0.56 (12) | 1.29 (1) | 2.21 ± 0.96 (5) | – | 3.35 (1) | – | |
| 11.44 ± 4.32 (23) | 16.94 ± 3.49 (7) | – | 12.47 ± 0.49 (3) | – | 16.06 ± 6.89 (28) | 13.6 ± 0 (1) | 16.29 ± 3.69 (10) | 9.32 (1) | 21.2 (1) | 11.33 ± 1.04 (3) | |
| 11.75 ± 6.68 (24) | 3.64 ± 3.54 (7) | – | 15.5 ± 9.13 (3) | – | 9.45 ± 4.35 (25) | 12 ± 2.82 (2) | 9.43 ± 3.08 (7) | 3 (1) | 15.9 (1) | 6.67 ± 2.02 (3) | |
| – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – | |
| Present | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Absent | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – |
| 15 | 4 | – | 2 | – | 18 | 1 | 7 | – | 1 | 1 | |
| ♂ | 12 | 1 | – | – | – | 17 | 1 | 7 | – | 1 | 1 |
| ♀ | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Both | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| None | 2* | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 24 | 10 | – | 4 | – | 25 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| ♂ | 14 | 9 | – | 1 | – | 20 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| ♀ | 2 | – | – | 3 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – |
| Both | 6 | – | – | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | – | – |
| None | 2* | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 27 | 11 | 4 | 3 | – | 29 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Phytotelmata | 2* | 3(2*) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Non-Phytotelmata | 25 | 6 | 4 | 3 | – | 29 | 44 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Conspicuousnessa | 1.55 ± 0.45 (38) | 1.41 ± 0.57 (16) | 1.44 ± 0.69 (10) | 1.79 ± 0.31 (7) | 1.41 (1) | 1.59 ± 0.46 (33) | 2.09 ± 0.22 (5) | 1.87 ± 0.14 (17) | 1.41 (1) | 1.57 ± 0.22 (2) | 1.60 ± 0.17 (5) |
| Alkaloidsa | 0 ± 0 (7) | – | 0 (1) | 0.15 ± 0.23 (2) | – | 0 ± 0 (3) | 0 (1) | – | – | – | 0 (1) |
Figure 2Ancestral reconstruction of (A) habitat, (B) sex of caregiver and (C) larval cannibalism in Dendrobatidae. (D) A male Hyloxalus nexipus transporting tadpoles. Photograph by Juan C. Santos. Figures were created using R software version 4.0.3 (https://www.r-project.org/) and modified using Adobe Illustrator version 15.1.0 (https://www.adobe.com/).
Comparison between ß values of independent phylogenetic regressions. The coefficient significance is indicated by *(superscript) for P < 0.05 and NS (superscript) for P > 0.05. All P-values were adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR). A longer version is provided in Table S4).
| Conspicuousness score | SSD | Clutch size | Egg size | Tadpole size | Tadpoles carried | Alkaloids | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | |||||||
| SSD | 0.64NS | – | |||||
| Clutch size | − 0.001NS | 0.003NS | – | ||||
| Egg size | 0.028NS | − 0.015NS | − 2.53NS | – | |||
| Tadpole Size | − 0.055NS | 0.627NS | 0.521NS | 0.06NS | – | ||
| Number of Tadpoles carried | − 0.012NS | 0.005NS | 0.578*** | − 0.20NS | 0.01NS | – | |
| Alkaloids | 0.231* | 0.003NS | 0.001NS | 0.215NS | − 0.05* | − 0.13NS | – |
Results of the phylogenetic logistic regression for parental care traits and aposematism components in poison frogs. Values in bold denote P < 0.05). The categorical variables and their the character states in parenthesis are: tadpole deposition site (phytotelmata/non-phytotelmata), cannibalism (presence/absence), alkaloids (presence/absence), tadpole-carrying sex (male/female), habitat where adults usually live (near streams/away from streams), conspicuousness (conspicuous/non-conspicuous), and type of care (male/female). The continuous variables include: Coloration score based on[43], SSD (sexual size dimorphism), number of tadpoles transported, and size of tadpoles at Gosner stage 25. The asterisk (*) indicates that tadpole size was controlled by female body size.
| Binary dependent | N | Intercept | Coloration score | SSD | Number of Tadpoles transported | Tadpole size* | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β0 | β1 | β2 | β3 | β4 | |||||||
| Tadpole deposition | 112 | − 255.207 | 0.087 | − | 348.390 | 0.532 | − 1.122 | 0.953 | |||
| Cannibalism | 23 | − 7.620 | 0.769 | 573.730 | 0.614 | − 952.465 | 0.366 | − 19.480 | 0.327 | ||
| Alkaloids | 61 | 856.480 | 0.324 | − | − 15.210 | 0.383 | |||||
| Tadpole−ferrying sex | 110 | − 47.990 | 0.800 | 114.230 | 0.198 | 847.570 | 0.081 | − 0.350 | 0.988 | 11.302 | 0.179 |
| Conspicuousness | 114 | − 227.266 | 0.084 | − | − | 697.208 | 0.242 | 21.313 | 0.650 | 6.207 | 0.403 |
| Habitat | 114 | − 851.212 | 0.064 | − | − 11.880 | 0.100 | |||||
| Type care | 82 | 194.769 | 0.402 | − 6.936 | 0.949 | 700.860 | 0.286 | 1.352 | 0.985 | 9.757 | 0.451 |
Figure 3Transition rate estimates from the best dependent model with q34 = q43 = q12 = q21 constraints for both conspicuousness and skin-alkaloids with phytotelm-breeding derived from MCMC analyses. Values in red and italics correspond to the model with conspicuousness traits and values in green (no italics) correspond to the model with skin-alkaloids traits. Note that transition values at q34, q43, q12, and q21 have the same transition value in both types of models. Illustrations by MJ Tovar-Gil, AM Ospina-L and DL Rivera-Robles. Figure was modified using Adobe Illustrator version 15.1.0 (https://www.adobe.com/). The image of the phytotelm is under Non-Commercial Use (http://clipart-library.com).
Parameters of the dependent models using aposematism components (conspicuousness or skin-alkaloids) versus phytotelm-breeding traits.
| Dependent on | Trait | Parameter | Transitions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conspicuousness = 1 | Phytotelm-breeding | q34 | 0 → 1 |
| or Skin-Alkaloids = 1 | q43 | 1 → 0 | |
| Conspicuousness = 0 | Phytotelm-breeding | q12 | 0 → 1 |
| or Skin-Alkaloids = 0 | q21 | 1 → 0 | |
| Phytotelm-breeding = 1 | Conspicuousness | q24 | 0 → 1 |
| or Skin-Alkaloids | q42 | 1 → 0 | |
| Phytotelm-breeding = 0 | Conspicuousness | q13 | 0 → 1 |
| or Skin-Alkaloids | q31 | 1 → 0 |