Interrelationships Between Bones, Muscles, and Performance: Biting in the Lizard Tupinambis merianae
- 258 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMorphometrics Covariation Function Cranium Mandible
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.
- 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
- Baylac, M. (2012). Rmorph: A R geometric and multivariate morphometrics library. Available from the author: firstname.lastname@example.org.Google Scholar
- Currey, J. D. (2002). Bones, structure and mechanics (p. 436). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Development Core Team, R. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Mendez, J., & Keys, A. (1960). Density and composition of mammalian muscle. Metabolism, 9, 184–188.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Schwenk, K. (2000). Feeding: Form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates (p. 537). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Zelditch, M. (2004). Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar