Phylogenetic conservatism in skulls and evolutionary lability in limbs – morphological evolution across an ancient frog radiation is shaped by diet, locomotion and burrowing

Vidal‐García, Marta; Keogh, J. Scott

doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0993-0

Cited by 48 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(93 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dots are colored by geographic region according to the color coding shown in Figure 1The high degree of morphological resemblance observed across the entire radiation is mirrored in the results yielded by the SURFACE algorithm. SURFACE did not detect convergence across lineages occupying equivalent foraging niches as has been shown in other groups such as dragon lizards, boas, terapontid fishes, and myobatrachid frogs (e.g.,Collar, Schulte, O'Meara, & Losos, 2010;Davis & Betancur-R, 2017;Esquerré & Keogh, 2016;Reynolds et al, 2016;Vidal-García & Keogh, 2017). The only convergent regimes identified by SURFACE corresponded to monotypic genera and/or lineages that have colonized a novel and underexploited environment like Origma solitaria, the only acanthizid species strongly associated with rock formations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Environmental determinism, and not interspecific competition, drives morphological variability in Australasian warblers (Acanthizidae)

García‐Navas

Rodríguez-Rey

Marki

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interspecific competition is thought to play a key role in determining the coexistence of closely related species within adaptive radiations. Competition for ecological resources can lead to different outcomes from character displacement to, ultimately, competitive exclusion. Accordingly, divergent natural selection should disfavor those species that are the most similar to their competitor in resource use, thereby increasing morphological disparity. Here, we examined ecomorphological variability within an Australo‐Papuan bird radiation, the Acanthizidae, which include both allopatric and sympatric complexes. In addition, we investigated whether morphological similarities between species are related to environmental factors at fine scale (foraging niche) and/or large scale (climate). Contrary to that predicted by the competition hypothesis, we did not find a significant correlation between the morphological similarities found between species and their degree of range overlap. Comparative modeling based on both a priori and data‐driven identification of selective regimes suggested that foraging niche is a poor predictor of morphological variability in acanthizids. By contrast, our results indicate that climatic conditions were an important factor in the formation of morphological variation. We found a significant negative correlation between species scores for PC1 (positively associated to tarsus length and tail length) and both temperature and precipitation, whereas PC2 (positively associated to bill length and wing length) correlated positively with precipitation. In addition, we found that species inhabiting the same region are closer to each other in morphospace than to species outside that region regardless of genus to which they belong or its foraging strategy. Our results indicate that the conservative body form of acanthizids is one that can work under a wide variety of environments (an all‐purpose morphology), and the observed interspecific similarity is probably driven by the common response to environment.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Environmental determinism, and not interspecific competition, drives morphological variability in Australasian warblers (Acanthizidae)

García‐Navas

Rodríguez-Rey

Marki

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nonadaptive mechanisms of architectural constraint (i.e., allometry; ref. 8) and phylogenetic conservatism (9) also have been invoked to explain morphological variation within and across lineages, particularly in cases in which extreme shifts are absent. The diversification of the skull usually results from changes in size or shape of preexisting elements or the loss of bones (10), but the origin of novel structures also may be responsible for shifts in morphology (11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of hyperossification expands skull diversity in frogs

Paluh

Stanley

Blackburn

2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frogs (Anura) are one of the most diverse vertebrate orders, comprising more than 7,000 species with a worldwide distribution and extensive ecological diversity. In contrast to other tetrapods, frogs have a highly derived body plan and simplified skull. In many lineages of anurans, increased mineralization has led to hyperossified skulls, but the function of this trait and its relationship with other aspects of head morphology are largely unexplored. Using three-dimensional morphological data from 158 species representing all frog families, we assessed wide-scale patterns of shape variation across all major lineages, reconstructed the evolutionary history of cranial hyperossification across the anuran phylogeny, and tested for relationships between ecology, skull shape, and hyperossification. Although many frogs share a conserved skull shape, several extreme forms have repeatedly evolved that commonly are associated with hyperossification, which has evolved independently more than 25 times. Variation in cranial shape is not explained by phylogenetic relatedness but is correlated with shifts in body size and ecology. The species with highly divergent, hyperossified skulls often have a specialized diet or a unique predator defense mechanism. Thus, the evolution of hyperossification has repeatedly facilitated the expansion of the head into multiple new shapes and functions.Anura | cranium | dermal ornamentation | geometric morphometrics | microcomputed tomography I dentifying the factors that drive evolutionary changes in the heads of vertebrates has been a long-standing challenge because of the difficulties of sampling taxa broadly, quantifying complex morphologies, and identifying possible mechanisms responsible for generating macroevolutionary patterns. The diverse selective pressures proposed to drive extreme derivations in the skull include specializations in feeding biology (1), habitat use (2), and locomotion (3). Sexual selection also is thought to influence head morphology because the skull often is sexually dimorphic in size and shape (4, 5). The interactions among these selective pressures can result in functional trade-offs (6) that shape the head as an integrated system that must house the sensory organs, capture prey, provide protection, and partake in locomotion and reproduction (7). The nonadaptive mechanisms of architectural constraint (i.e., allometry; ref. 8) and phylogenetic conservatism (9) also have been invoked to explain morphological variation within and across lineages, particularly in cases in which extreme shifts are absent. The diversification of the skull usually results from changes in size or shape of preexisting elements or the loss of bones (10), but the origin of novel structures also may be responsible for shifts in morphology (11).Increased mineralization or hyperossification of the skull is a recurrent feature among vertebrates; it also is known as dermal ornamentation (12,13). In its most rudimentary form, additional membrane bone is deposited on the skeleton to form ridges and...

show abstract

“…For example, jointly analyzing the skull and mandible could be crucial to disentangle the relationship between diet and head shape evolution (Cornette, Baylac, Souter, & Herrel, ). Similarly, collectively evaluating different modules in the limbs, especially when correlated to locomotion, or considering several structures across the whole body, could improve our understanding of the effect of environmental conditions on morphological evolution (Vidal‐García & Keogh, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, collectively evaluating different modules in the limbs, especially when correlated to locomotion, or considering several structures across the whole body, could improve our understanding of the effect of environmental conditions on morphological evolution (Vidal-García & Keogh, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

ShapeRotator: An R tool for standardized rigid rotations of articulated three‐dimensional structures with application for geometric morphometrics

Vidal‐García

Bandara

Keogh

2018

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantification of complex morphological patterns typically involves comprehensive shape and size analyses, usually obtained by gathering morphological data from all the structures that capture the phenotypic diversity of an organism or object. Articulated structures are a critical component of overall phenotypic diversity, but data gathered from these structures are difficult to incorporate into modern analyses because of the complexities associated with jointly quantifying 3D shape in multiple structures. While there are existing methods for analyzing shape variation in articulated structures in two‐dimensional (2D) space, these methods do not work in 3D, a rapidly growing area of capability and research. Here, we describe a simple geometric rigid rotation approach that removes the effect of random translation and rotation, enabling the morphological analysis of 3D articulated structures. Our method is based on Cartesian coordinates in 3D space, so it can be applied to any morphometric problem that also uses 3D coordinates (e.g., spherical harmonics). We demonstrate the method by applying it to a landmark‐based dataset for analyzing shape variation using geometric morphometrics. We have developed an R tool (ShapeRotator) so that the method can be easily implemented in the commonly used R package geomorph and MorphoJ software. This method will be a valuable tool for 3D morphological analyses in articulated structures by allowing an exhaustive examination of shape and size diversity.

show abstract

Phylogenetic conservatism in skulls and evolutionary lability in limbs – morphological evolution across an ancient frog radiation is shaped by diet, locomotion and burrowing

Cited by 48 publications

References 82 publications

Environmental determinism, and not interspecific competition, drives morphological variability in Australasian warblers (Acanthizidae)

Environmental determinism, and not interspecific competition, drives morphological variability in Australasian warblers (Acanthizidae)

Evolution of hyperossification expands skull diversity in frogs

ShapeRotator: An R tool for standardized rigid rotations of articulated three‐dimensional structures with application for geometric morphometrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About