The skull variation of the olive field mouseAbrothrix olivacea(Cricetidae: Abrotrichini) is localized and correlated to the ecogeographic features of its geographic distribution

Abstract

The relationship between phenotypic variation and landscape heterogeneity has been extensively studied to understand how the environment influences patterns of morphological variation and differentiation of populations. Several studies had partially addressed intraspecific variation in the sigmodontine rodent Abrothrix olivacea, focusing on the characterization of physiological aspects and cranial variation. However, these had been conducted based on geographically restricted populational samples, and in most cases, the aspects characterized were not explicitly contextualized with the environmental configurations in which the populations occurred. Here, the cranial variation of A. olivacea was characterized by recording twenty cranial measurements in 235 individuals from 64 localities in Argentina and Chile, which widely cover the geographic and environmental distribution of this species. The morphological variation was analyzed and ecogeographically contextualized using multivariate statistical analyses, which also included climatic and ecological variation at the localities where the individuals were sampled. Results indicate that the cranial variation of this species is mostly clustered in localized patterns associated to the types of environments, and that the levels of cranial differentiation are higher among the populations from arid and treeless zones. Additionally, the ecogeographical association of cranial size variation indicate that this species does not follow Bergmann’s rule and that island populations exhibit larger cranial sizes compared to their continental counterparts distributed at the same latitudes. These results suggest that cranial differentiation among the populations of this species is not homogeneous throughout its geographic distribution, and that the patterns of morphological differentiation are also not completely consistent with the patterns of genetic structuring that have been described recently. Finally, the analyses performed to ponder morphological differentiation among populations suggest that the contribution of genetic drift in the formation of these patterns can be ruled out among Patagonian populations, and that the selective effect imposed by the environment could better explain them.

Assessing Ecogeographic Rules in Two Sigmodontine Rodents along an Elevational Gradient in Central Chile

“…Under Bergmann’s rule interpretation, our data suggest that morphology may contribute (at least partially) to thermoregulation in A. olivacea , since a larger body size in colder environments (i.e., high elevational habitats) favors corporal heat maintenance, due to the lower surface-area-to-volume ratio. However, we interpret this result with caution due to the limited degree of correlation observed between elevation and cranial size (also see the data of [ 53 ]), and that the body length of A. olivacea did not meet the expectations of Bergmann’s rule. Similarly, the expected relationship between cranial size [ 53 ] or body mass and latitude in this species [ 54 ] did not align with the predictions of the latter rule, although this latitudinal pattern has been observed in larger native mammals of Chile such as the “chilla” and “culpeo” foxes [ 55 ].…”

“…However, we interpret this result with caution due to the limited degree of correlation observed between elevation and cranial size (also see the data of [ 53 ]), and that the body length of A. olivacea did not meet the expectations of Bergmann’s rule. Similarly, the expected relationship between cranial size [ 53 ] or body mass and latitude in this species [ 54 ] did not align with the predictions of the latter rule, although this latitudinal pattern has been observed in larger native mammals of Chile such as the “chilla” and “culpeo” foxes [ 55 ]. Otherwise, cranial size changes observed in A. olivacea along the elevational gradient might be related to other factors that we did not evaluate here.…”