2017
DOI: 10.3161/00034541anz2017.67.2.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Influence of Climate on Shell Variation in Trochulus striolatus (C. Pfeiffer, 1828) (Gastropoda: Hygromiidae) and Its Implications for Subspecies Taxonomy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
17
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
5
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Manuscript to be reviewed in the northern region (1,702-2,400 m asl) was lower than the altitudinal interval in which the populations in the southern region were collected (2,587-2,759 m asl), which was consistent with the results previously found in intrapopulation studies of the species of the genera Arianta, Vestia and Trochulus (Burla and Stahel 1983;Baur and Raboud 1988;Sulikowska-Drozd 2001;Proćków et al 2017), where the populations from colder climates had smaller shells. This could be related to a greater probability of survival of organisms with small shells in unfavorable climatic conditions (Baur et al 2014) and the greater resistance to crystallization temperatures (Ansart et al 2014).…”
Section: Variation Of the Shell In H Durangoensissupporting
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Manuscript to be reviewed in the northern region (1,702-2,400 m asl) was lower than the altitudinal interval in which the populations in the southern region were collected (2,587-2,759 m asl), which was consistent with the results previously found in intrapopulation studies of the species of the genera Arianta, Vestia and Trochulus (Burla and Stahel 1983;Baur and Raboud 1988;Sulikowska-Drozd 2001;Proćków et al 2017), where the populations from colder climates had smaller shells. This could be related to a greater probability of survival of organisms with small shells in unfavorable climatic conditions (Baur et al 2014) and the greater resistance to crystallization temperatures (Ansart et al 2014).…”
Section: Variation Of the Shell In H Durangoensissupporting
confidence: 85%
“…2). However, whereas these variables were not significant to explain the genetic relationships among the groups, they suggested that both the phenotype and genotype were the results of independent processes (Haase and Misof 2009); that is, the microhabitat conditions had a great effect on the shell despite the existence of gene flow (Chiba and Davison 2007;Fiorentino et al 2013;Stankowski 2013;Proćków et al 2017). Thus, whereas it has been suggested that the use of comparative phylogenetic methods at intrapopulation levels may generate poor informative results (Niewiarowski et al 2004), the power of resolution of these methods may depend on the taxon and the assessed trait (Martins and Housworth 2002), as has been found in this study.…”
Section: Variation Of the Shell In H Durangoensismentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Blanckenhorn 1997, Fischer & Fiedler 2002, Chown & Klok 2003, Blanckenhorn & Demont 2004, Puzin et al 2014, Horne et al 2015, Ramírez-Delgado et al 2016. While this pattern is also present when comparing the SW and NE populations of X. obvia in this study and might reflect the same constraints, this is not reflected so consistently among snails (Baur & Raboud 1988, Gittenberger 1991, Kotsakiozi et al 2013, Giokas et al 2014, Proćków et al 2017). An extensive literature review (Goodfriend 1986) noted some individualistic responses in body size of land snails along altitudinal, moisture, temperature/insolation and calcium availability gradients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 46%
“…In an extensive literature review shell size in terrestrial gastropods individualistic responses have been noted along moisture, temperature/insolation, and calcium availability gradients (Goodfriend, 1986), although the author could not identify universal ecological predictors. Most likely synergetic interactions between them could be the best explanation of the size variations resulting from the influence of local environmental and/or climate factors (Proćków et al, 2017), where maximum sizes are attained at environmental optima (Rensch, 1932(Rensch, , 1939Терентьев, 1970). Our assumption is that these conditions are adequately reflected in the projected habitat quality for the species.…”
Section: Relationships Between Body Size and Habitat Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%