Advertisement

Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 518–527 | Cite as

Interrelationships Between Bones, Muscles, and Performance: Biting in the Lizard Tupinambis merianae

  • Anne-Claire Fabre
  • Denis V. Andrade
  • Katleen Huyghe
  • Raphael Cornette
  • Anthony Herrel
Research Article

Abstract

The origins of and potential constraints on the evolution of phenotypic diversity remain one of the central questions in evolutionary biology. The vertebrate skeleton is governed by historical, developmental, architectural, and functional constraints that all play a role in establishing its final form. Whereas the factors underlying shape variation in single bones are fairly well understood, this is less so the case for complex assemblages of bones as observed in the cranium or mandible. It is often suggested that the final phenotype must reflect the mechanical constraints imposed by the loading of the skeleton as bones remodel to withstand loading. Yet, in the cranium, in contrast to the mandible, the final phenotype is likely constrained by demands other than loading including the protection of sensory systems and the brain. Architectural design constraints may further limit the final form of complex units like the vertebrate cranium. Here we use geometric morphometric approaches to quantify the shape of the cranium and mandible in a lizard and test whether the observed shape co-varies with both the muscles attaching to these structures as well as functional traits such as bite force. Our results show that co-variation between the cranium and mandible is significant and likely driven by the muscles that link the two systems. Moreover, our results show that the patterns of co-variation are stronger between the mandible and ventral side of the cranium. Muscular cross sectional areas, bite force, and the ventral side of the cranium, also co-vary more than the dorsal side of the cranium does with muscle properties and function. Finally, our results show sex-specific patterns of co-variation with males showing a stronger degree of integration between the cranium, mandible, muscles and bite force suggesting that constraints on bite force drive the evolution of cranial shape to a greater extent in males compared to females.

Keywords

Morphometrics Covariation Function Cranium Mandible 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on a previous version of the manuscript; we thank Jose Eduardo de Carvalho, Ananda Brito and Carlos Carlos Navas for help in collecting the data. D.V.A. was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), and Fundação para o Desenvolvimento da Universidade Estudial Paulista (FUNDUNESP); K.H. is a postdoctoral fellow of the fund for scientific research, Flanders, Belgium (FWO-Vl); A-C. F is supported by the Fondation Fyssen.

Supplementary material

11692_2014_9286_MOESM1_ESM.tif (5.2 mb)
Figure S1: Results of a two-block partial least squares analysis performed on data for males only. A) partial least squares analysis for the mandible and the shape of the in dorsal view; B) partial least squares analysis for the mandible and the shape of the in ventral view. Illustrated are the landmarks taken on the cranium and mandible as well as the shapes representing the extremes along the first PLS axis (red = positive; blue = negative). (TIFF 5343 kb)
11692_2014_9286_MOESM2_ESM.tif (5.2 mb)
Figure S2: Results of a two-block partial least squares analysis performed on data for females only. A) partial least squares analysis for the mandible and the shape of the in dorsal view; B) partial least squares analysis for the mandible and the shape of the in ventral view. Illustrated are the landmarks taken on the cranium and mandible as well as the shapes representing the extremes along the first PLS axis (red = positive; blue = negative). (TIFF 5340 kb)
11692_2014_9286_MOESM3_ESM.tif (4.7 mb)
Figure S3: Results of a two-block partial least squares analysis performed on data for males only. A) covariation between the dorsal side of the skull and the muscle cross sectional areas; B) covariation between the ventral side of the skull and the muscle cross sectional areas; C) covariation between the mandible and the muscle cross sectional areas. Illustrated are the landmarks taken on the cranium and mandible as well as the shapes representing the extremes along the first PLS axis (red = positive; blue = negative). Closed symbols represent males, open symbols females. (TIFF 4817 kb)
11692_2014_9286_MOESM4_ESM.tif (4.8 mb)
Figure S4: Results of a two-block partial least squares analysis performed on data for females only. A) covariation between the dorsal side of the skull and the muscle cross sectional areas; B) covariation between the ventral side of the skull and the muscle cross sectional areas; C) covariation between the mandible and the muscle cross sectional areas. Illustrated are the landmarks taken on the cranium and mandible as well as the shapes representing the extremes along the first PLS axis (red = positive; blue = negative). Closed symbols represent males, open symbols females. (TIFF 4871 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, R., McBrayer, L. D., & Herrel, A. (2008). Bite force in vertebrates: Opportunities and caveats for use of a nonpareil whole-animal performance measure. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93, 709–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barel, C. D., Anker, G. C., Witte, F., Hoogerhoud, R. J., & Goldschmidt, T. (1989). Constructional constraint and its ecomorphological implications. Acta Morphologica Neerlandica Scandinavia, 27, 83–109.Google Scholar
  3. Baylac, M. (2012). Rmorph: A R geometric and multivariate morphometrics library. Available from the author: baylac@mnhn.fr.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, S., Krinsky, B. H., & Long, M. (2013). New genes as drivers of phenotypic evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14, 645–660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clabaut, C., Herrel, A., Sanger, T., Smith, T., & Abzhanov, A. (2009). Development of beak polymorphism in the African Seedcracker, Pyrenestes ostrinus. Evolution and Development, 11, 636–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, C. L., & Rabosky, A. R. D. (2013). Spatial and temporal drivers of phenotypic diversity in polymorphic snakes. American Naturalist, 182, E40–E57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Currey, J. D. (2002). Bones, structure and mechanics (p. 436). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Currey, J. D. (2003). The many adaptations of bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 36, 1487–1495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Development Core Team, R. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  10. Dray, S., & Dufour, A. B. (2007). The ade4 package: Implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. Journal of Statistical Software, 22(4), 1–20.Google Scholar
  11. Escoufier, Y. (1973). Le traitement des variables vectiorelles. Biometrics, 29, 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabre, A.-C., Cornette, R., Huyghe, K., Andrade, D. & Herrel, A. (in press). Linear versus geometric morphometric approaches for the analysis of head shape dimorphism in lizards. Journal of Morphology. doi: 10.1002/jmor.20278.
  13. Fulton, C. J., Binning, S. A., Wainwright, P. C., & Bellwood, D. R. (2013). Wave-induced abiotic stress shapes phenotypic diversity in a coral reef fish across a geographical cline. Coral Reefs, 32, 685–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goswami, A., & Polly, P. D. (2010). Methods for studying morphological integration and modularity. In J. Alroy J & G. Hunt (Eds.), Quantitative Paleontology (pp. 213–243). The Paleontological Society Papers.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gröning, F., Jones, M. E. H., Curtis, N., Herrel, A., O’Higgins, P., Evans, S. E., et al. (2013). The importance of accurate muscle modelling for biomechanical analyses: A case study with a lizard. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 10, 20130216.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hallgrímsson, B., Jamniczky, H., Young, N. M., Rolian, C., Parsons, T. E., Boughner, J. C., et al. (2009). Deciphering the Palimpsest: Studying the relationship between morphological integration and phenotypic covariation. Evolutionary Biology, 36, 355–376.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrel, A., Aerts, P., & De Vree, F. (1998). Ecomorphology of the lizard feeding apparatus: A modelling approach. Netherlands Journal of Zoolology, 48(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrel, A., Andrade, D. V., de Carvalho, J. E., Brito, A., Abe, A., & Navas, C. (2009). Aggressive behavior and performance in the tegu lizard Tupinambis merianae. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 82, 680–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrel, A., McBrayer, L. D., & Larson, P. M. (2007). Functional basis for intersexual differences in bite force in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 91, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrel, A., Spithoven, L., Van Damme, R., & De Vree, F. (1999). Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti; testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Functional Ecology, 13(3), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hulsey, C. D., Mims, M. C., & Streelman, J. T. (2007). Do constructional constraints influence cichlid craniofacial diversification? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 1867–1875.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Husak, J. F., Lappin, A. K., Fox, S. F., & Lemos-Espinal, J. A. (2006). Bite-force performance predicts dominance in male venerable collared lizards (Crotaphytus antiquus). Copeia, 2006, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huyghe, K., Herrel, A., Adriaens, D., Tadić, Z., & Van Damme, R. (2009). It ‘s all in the head. Morphological basis for differences in bite force among colour morphs of the Dalmatian wall lizard. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 96, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huyghe, K., Husak, J. F., Moore, I. T., Vanhooydonck, B., Van Damme, R., Molina-Borja, M., et al. (2010). Effects of testosterone on morphology, performance and muscle mass in a lizard. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 313A, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huyghe, K., Vanhooydonck, B., Scheers, H., Molina-Borja, M., & Van Damme, R. (2005). Morphology, performance and fighting capacity in male lizards, Gallotia galloti. Functional Ecology, 19, 800–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaliontzopoulou, A., Carretero, M. A., & Llorente, G. A. (2008). Head shape allometry and proximate causes of head sexual dimorphism in Podarcis lizards: Joining linear and geometric morphometrics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klingenberg, C. P. (2009). Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: Tools for evaluating a priori hypotheses. Evolution and Development, 11, 405–421.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klingenberg, C. P., & Marugan-Lobon, J. (2013). Evolutionary covariation in geometric morphometric data: Analyzing integration, modularity, and allometry in a phylogenetic context. Systematic Biology, 62, 591–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Losos, J. B., Arnold, S. J., Bejerano, G., Brodie, E. D, I. I. I., Hibbett, D., Hoekstra, H. E., et al. (2013). Evolutionary biology for the 21st century. PLoS Biology, 11, e1001466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001466.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mendez, J., & Keys, A. (1960). Density and composition of mammalian muscle. Metabolism, 9, 184–188.Google Scholar
  32. Monteiro, L. R., & Abe, A. S. (1997). Allometry and morphological integration in the of Tupinambis merianae (Lacertilia: Teiidae). Amphibia-Reptilia, 18, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murray, P. D., & Drachman, D. B. (1969). The role of movement in the development of joints and related structures: The head and neck in the chick embryo. Journal for Embryology and Experimental Morphology, 22, 349–371.Google Scholar
  34. Naretto, S., Cardozo, G., Blengini, C. S., & Chiaraviglio, M. (2013). Sexual selection and dynamics of jaw muscle in Tupinambis lizards. Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1007/s11692-013-9257-0.Google Scholar
  35. Pontzer, H., Lieberman, D., Momin, E., Devlin, M., Polk, J., Hallgrímsson, B., et al. (2006). Trabecular bone responds with high sensitivity to load orientation in the knee. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209, 57–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Renaud, S., Auffray, J-F. & de la Porte, S. (2010). Epigenetic effects on the mouse mandible: common features and discrepancies in remodeling due to muscular dystrophy and response to food consistency. BMC Evolutionary Biology 10, p 28 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/28.
  37. Rohlf, F. J., & Corti, M. (2000). Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape. Systematic Biology, 49, 740–753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. E. (1990). Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Biology, 39, 40–59.Google Scholar
  39. Ross, C. F. (2001). In vivo function of the craniofacial haft: The interorbital “pillar”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 116, 108–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwenk, K. (2000). Feeding: Form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates (p. 537). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Seilacher, A. (1970). Arbeitskonzept zur konstruktions-morphologie. Lethaia, 3, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharir, A., Stern, T., Rot, C., Shahar, R., & Zelzer, E. (2011). Muscle force regulates bone shaping for optimal load-bearing capacity during embryogenesis. Development, 138, 3247–3259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slizewski, A., Schönau, E., Shaw, C., & Harvati, K. (2013). Muscle area estimation from cortical bone. Anatomical Record, 296, 1695–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verwaijen, D., Van Damme, R., & Herrel, A. (2002). Relationships between head size, bite force, prey handling efficiency and diet in two sympatric lacertid lizards. Functional Ecology, 16, 842–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zelditch, M. (2004). Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Claire Fabre
    • 1
  • Denis V. Andrade
    • 2
  • Katleen Huyghe
    • 3
  • Raphael Cornette
    • 4
  • Anthony Herrel
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Evolutionary AnthropologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de ZoologiaUniversidade Estadual PaulistaRio ClaroBrazil
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  4. 4.Origine, Structure et Evolution de la BiodiversitéUMR 7205, CNRS/MNHNParisFrance
  5. 5.UMR CNRS/MNHN 7179, “Mécanismes adaptatifs: des organismes aux communautés”ParisFrance
  6. 6.Evolutionary Morphology of VertebratesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations