Advertisement

Zoomorphology

, Volume 138, Issue 1, pp 85–96 | Cite as

Variations in body shape of mountain habitat specialist Carabus croaticus and its sister species Carabus caelatus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) populations across Dinaric Alps

  • Željka Jambrošić VladićEmail author
  • Hugo A. Benítez
  • Alja Pirnat
  • Slavčo Hristovski
  • Lucija Šerić JelaskaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

There are abundant phenotypic variations of Carabus croaticus Dejean 1826, an endemic species of the Dinaric Alps, and its sister species Carabus caelatus Fabricius 1801, resulting in taxonomic inflation at intraspecific level, synonymy and inconsistency between relevant catalogues and checklists. The main aims of this research were to explore population structure based on morphology and geographic patterns of phenotypic variability, and compare the results with taxa described by nonmetric visual comparisons of morphological traits. Our study included 224 specimens of C. croaticus and 192 specimens of C. caelatus, covering most of their distributional range. Shapes of the pronotum and head were analysed using geometric morphometrics (GMM). Principal component and canonical variate analyses were used to characterize the main features of shape variation between populations and mountain ranges. GMM delimitated interspecific morphological variations but at the intraspecific level it showed many overlaps within populations for both species. Conducting the morphological analyses for the first time on most of the described phenotypic variants of studied species, we wanted to provide a new evidence for the possible solution of the taxonomic relations within these two endemic species by measuring body shape variability, and thus to enable a better understanding of the evolutionary processes in the Dinaric Mountains.

Keywords

Balkan Peninsula Ground beetles Endemic species Geometric morphometrics Speciation Morphological variability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Croatian Ecological Society and Plitvice National Park for financial support (Grant: 4492/16), B. Drovenik and P. Durbešić for the permission to work on the material from their collections, to Mrs Drovenik for her hospitality during our visits to their home and during long hours working on the collection; to L. Vladić, R. Vladić, A. Jakovac and S. Jelaska for all their help in the field and J. Skejo for constructive discussion on the manuscript. HB would like to thanks to the Universidad de Tarapacá Grant DGI-UTA 9719-17. The authors are grateful to two reviewers whose comments substantially improved the manuscript, and special thanks to dr. A. Cardini for valuable comments on the MS in particular for advices on GMM analyses.

Author contributions

LSJ, ZJV and AP designed the study; ZJV, LSJ, AP and SH collected the samples, ZJV performed morphometric measurements of sampled material and data analyses, ZJV and HAB performed statistical analysis; ZJV, HAB and LSJ wrote the manuscript; all authors contributed in improving the draft of the manuscript by adding valuable comments; LSJ supervised this work from the very beginning.

Funding

This study was funded by Croatian Ecological Society and Plitvice National Park (Grant number 4492/16, LSJ project leader).

Compliance with ethical standards

Data accessibility

The datasets generated during the current study are available in the figshare repository https://figshare.com/s/46665293e7390e174bc8 (doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.7415351). Details with the link will be added upon acceptance of publishing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

435_2018_428_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (825 kb)
Online Resource 1 Canonical variate analysis showing pronotum shape variations for all subspecies (phenotypic variants) of (A) C. caelatus (black=C. caelatus cabuljensis; grey=C. caelatus caelatus; blue=C. caelatus dalmatinus; light blue=C. caelatus macretus; red= C. caelatus malissorum; purple= C. caelatus metalkanus; pink=C. caelatus procerus; orange= C. caelatus sarajevoensis; green= C. caelatus schreiberi; light green= C. caelatus volujakianus) and (B) C. croaticus (black=C. croaticus babinjensis; grey=C. croaticus bosnicus; blue=C. croaticus bosiljevici; light blue=C. croaticus kraetschmeri; red= C. croaticus croaticus; purple=C. croaticus droveniki, light purple= C. croaticus durmitorensis; pink=C. croaticus frankenbergeri; light pink= C. croaticus kobingeri; orange= C. croaticus ljubetensis; green= C. croaticus mediterraneus; light green= C. croaticus pretneri, brown= C. croaticus travnikanus; yellow=C. croaticus zepcensis) (JPG 824 KB)

References

  1. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ (2000) Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:4106–4111.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.8.4106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2013) A field comes of age: geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix 24(1):7–14.  https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6283 Google Scholar
  3. Alibert P, Moureau B, Dommergues JL, David B (2001) Differentiation at a microgeographical scale within two species of ground beetles, Carabus auronitens and C. nemoralis (Coleoptera, Carabidae): a geometrical morphometric approach. Zool Scr 30(4):299–311.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1463-6409.2001.00068.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angielczyk KD, Feldman CR (2013) Are diminutive turtles miniaturized? The ontogeny of plastron shape in emydine turtles. Biol J Linn Soc 108:727–755.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auffray JC, Alibert P, Renaud S, Orth A, Bonhomm F (1996) Fluctuating asymmetry in Mus musculus subspecific hybridisation: traditional and Procrustes comparative approaches. In: Marcus LF, Corty M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE (eds) Advances in morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York, pp 275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birks HJB, Line JM (1993) Glacial refugia of European trees—a matter of chance? Diss Bot 196:283–291Google Scholar
  7. Bousquet Y, Březina B, Davies A, Farkač J, Smetana A (2017) Carabini. In: Löbl I, Löbl D (eds) 2017: Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Archostemata–Myxophaga–Adephaga. Revised and updated edition, vol 1. Brill, Leiden (ISBN: 978-90-04-33028-3, print book)Google Scholar
  8. Campbell NA, Atchley WR (1981) The geometry of canonical variate analysis. Syst Zool 30:268–280.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2413249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. David B, Laurin B (1996) Morphometrics and cladistics: measuring phylogeny in the sea urchin Echinocardium. Evolution 50:348–359.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2410806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Jong H (1998) In search of historical biogeographic patterns in the western Mediterranean terrestrial fauna. Biol J Linn Soc 65:99–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1998.tb00353.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deuve T (2004) Illustrated catalogue of the genus Carabus of the world (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Pensoft, SophiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Drovenik B, Peks H (1999) Catalogus Faunae. Carabiden der Balkanländer. Schwanfelder Coleopterologische Mitteilungen, Neuflage, Sonderheft 1, SchwanfeldGoogle Scholar
  13. Dryden IL, Mardia KV (1998) Statistical shape analysis. Wiley, Chichester, p 172Google Scholar
  14. Fontaneto D, Panisi M, Mandrioli M, Montardi D, Pavesi M, Cardini A (2017) Estimating the magnitude of morphoscapes: how to measure the morphological component of biodiversity in relation to habitats using geometric morphometrics. Sci Nat 104:55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-017-1475-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hewitt GM (1999) Post-glacial re-colonization of European biota. Biol J Linn Soc 68:87–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01160.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hewitt GM (2000) The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages. Nature 405:907–913.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35016000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewitt GM (2004) Quaternary genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary. Phil Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 359:183–195.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hopkins MJ, Thurman CL (2010) The geographic structure of morphological variation in eight species of fiddler crabs (Ocypodidae: genus Uca) from the eastern United States and Mexico. Biol J Linn Soc 100:248–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01402.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huntley B, Birks HJB (1983) An atlas of past and present pollen maps for Europe, 0–13,000 years ago. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Klingenberg CP (2011) MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol Ecol Resour 11:353–357.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02924.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS (1998) Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analysing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with procrustes methods. Evolution 52:1363–1375.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02018.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klingenberg CP, Barluenga M, Meyer A (2002) Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56:1909–1920.  https://doi.org/10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056%5B1909:SAOSSQ%5D2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loy A, Corti M, Marcus LF (1993) Landmark data: size and shape analysis in systematics. A case study on old world Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora). In: Marcus LF, Bello I, García-Valdecasas A (eds) Contributions to morphometrics. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, pp 215–240Google Scholar
  24. Marchiori BA, Bartholomei-Santos LM, Santos S (2007) Intraspecific variation in Aegla longirostri (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) revealed by geometric morphometrics: evidence for ongoing speciation? Syst Entomol 32:371–386.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milankov V, Ludoski J, Francuski L, Stahls G, Vujic A (2013) Genetic and phenotypic diversity patterns in Merodon albifrons Meigen, 1822 (Diptera: Syrphidae): evidence of intraspecific spatial and temporal structuring. Biol J Linn Soc 110:257–280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mutanen M, Pretorius E (2007) Subjective visual evaluation vs. traditional and geometric morphometrics in species delimitation: a comparison of moth genitalia. Syst Entomol 32:371–386.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2006.00372.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GA, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naylor GJP (1996) Can partial warps scores be used as cladistic characters? In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE (eds) Advances in morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York, pp 275–284, 519–530Google Scholar
  29. Ober KA, Connolly CT (2015) Geometric morphometric and phylogenetic analyses of Arizona Sky Island populations of Scaphinotus petersi Roeschke (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Zool J Linn Soc 175:107–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oosterbroek P, Arntzen JW (1992) Area-cladograms of Circum-Mediterranean taxa in relation to Mediterranean palaeogeography. J Biogeogr 19:3–20.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2845616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Papac G (2014) Dinarsko Gorje. http://www.dinarskogorje.com/about-dinaric-alps.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2018
  32. Pereira RJ, Wake DB (2015) Ring species as demonstrations of the continuum of species formation. Mol Ecol 24:5312–5314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rapuzzi I (2014) Description of a new subspecies of Carabus (Megodontus) croaticus Dejean, 1826 from Serbia (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Carabinae). Munis Entomol Zool 9(2):602–604Google Scholar
  34. Rohlf FJ (2001) TPSdig, v.2.26. State University at Stony Brook, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Rohlf FJ, Slice D (1990) Extensions of the Procustes methods for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40–59.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2992207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Šerić Jelaska L, Jambrošić Vladić Ž, Radovanović H, Franjević D (2014) Comparison of molecular and morphological systematic of Carabus species (Coleoptera: Carabidae) with emphasis on species from Dinaric karst. Period Biol 116(3):249–257Google Scholar
  37. Sket B (1996) Biotic diversity in hypogean habitats in Slovenia and its cultural importance. In: Cimerman A, Gunde-Cimerman N (eds) International biodiversity seminar Ecco XIV meeting, Ljubljana, pp 59–74Google Scholar
  38. Taberlet P, Fumagalli L, Wust-Saucy AG, Cosson JF (1998) Comparative phylogeography and postglacial colonization routes in Europe. Mol Ecol 7:453–464.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00289.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turin H, Penev L, Casale A, Arndt E, Assmann T, Makarov K, Mossakowski D, Szél G, Weber F (2003) Species accounts. In: Turin H, Penev L, Casale A (eds) The genus Carabus in Europe—a synthesis. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, pp 151–284Google Scholar
  40. Viscosi V, Cardini A (2011) Leaf morphology, taxonomy and geometric morphometrics: a simplified protocol for beginners. PLoS One 6:e25630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Worthington AM, Berns CM, Swallow JG (2012) Size matters, but so does shape: quantifying complex shape changes in a sexually selected trait in stalked-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). Biol J Linn Soc 106:104–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01841.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zúñiga-Reinoso A, Benitez HA (2015) The overrated use of the morphological cryptic species concept: an example with Nyctelia darkbeetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) using geometric morphometrics. Zool Anz J Comp Zool 255:47–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2015.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Natural Sciences, Architecture and MiningVaraždinCroatia
  2. 2.Departamento de Recursos Ambientales, Facultad de Ciencias AgronómicasUniversidad de TarapacáAricaChile
  3. 3.ZVERCE, Researching Beetles and DragonfliesKamnikSlovenia
  4. 4.Institute of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and MathematicsSs. Cyril and Methodius UniversitySkopjeMacedonia
  5. 5.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations