Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 825–845 | Cite as

Relationships between head morphology, bite performance and ecology in two species of Podarcis wall lizards

  • Antigoni Kaliontzopoulou
  • Dean C. Adams
  • Arie van der Meijden
  • Ana Perera
  • Miguel A. Carretero
Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between form and function is central to our comprehension of how phenotypic diversity evolves. Traits involved in multiple activities, such as social interactions and ecological resource use, are under the influence of different evolutionary forces potentially acting in opposite directions. Such systems provide the opportunity of understanding how potential constraints on morphological variation may influence whole-organism performance. In this study we examined morphology and bite performance in two closely related species of Podarcis wall lizards with divergent microhabitat preferences, to investigate how natural and sexual selection interact to shape the evolution of head traits. Our results show that although head morphology is markedly different between species and sexes, only sexes differ in bite force, indicating that the ecological differentiation between species is reflected in their morphology but does not constrain performance. Rather, the modification of the relative size of head components between species and a shift in the form-function relationship provide a potential explanation of how equal performance is attained by different morphological configurations. Geometric morphometrics provide a clear, biomechanically meaningful image of how this is achieved and show a bisexual pattern of head shape-bite force association in both species. This, together with a strong allometry of head size on body size and head shape on head size, provides indirect morphological evidence for the importance of sexual selection in shaping morphological and functional patterns. Finally, our findings suggest that the differences observed between species and sexes in head traits and bite performance are not reflected in their dietary ecology, implying that if trophic niche segregation between groups occurs, the reasons behind it are not primarily related to head morphology and functional variation.

Keywords

Head shape Geometric morphometrics Sexual dimorphism Allometry Performance 

References

  1. Adams DC (2004) Character displacement via aggressive interference in Appalachian salamanders. Ecology 85:2664–2670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams DC, Nistri A (2010) Ontogenetic convergence and evolution of foot morphology in European cave salamanders (Family: Plethodontidae). BMC Evol Biol 10(216):1–10Google Scholar
  3. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ (2000) Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 97:4106–4111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. Ital J Zool 71:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alfaro ME, Bolnick DI, Wainwright PC (2004) Evolutionary dynamics of complex biomechanical systems: an example using the four-bar mechanism. Evolution 58:495–503PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Alfaro ME, Bolnick DI, Wainwright PC (2005) Evolutionary consequences of many-to-one mapping of jaw morphology to mechanics in labrid fishes. Am Nat 165:E140–E154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection: monographs in behavior and ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnold EN (1973) Relationships of the Palearctic lizards assigned to the genera Lacerta, Algyroides and Psammodromus (Reptilia: Lacertidae). Bull Br Mus 25:289–366Google Scholar
  9. Arnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool 23:347–361Google Scholar
  10. Arnold EN (1987) Resource partition among lacertid lizards in southern Europe. J Zool Lond (B) 1:739–782Google Scholar
  11. Arnold EN (1998) Cranial kinesis in lizards: variations, uses and origins. Evol Biol 30:323–357Google Scholar
  12. Bonduriansky R (2007) Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61:838–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonduriansky R, Day T (2003) The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57:2450–2458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Braña F (1996) Sexual dimorphism in lacertid lizards: male head increase vs female abdomen increase? Oikos 75:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brecko J, Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Herrel A, Grbac I (2008) Functional and ecological relevance of intraspecific variation in body size and shape in the lizard Podarcis melisellensis (Lacertidae). Biol J Linn Soc 94:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruner E, Constantini D (2007) Head morphological variation in Podarcis muralis and Podarcis sicula: a landmark-based approach. Amphib Reptilia 28:566–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Butler MA, Losos JB (2002) Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecol Monogr 72:541–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Butler MA, Sawyer SA, Losos JB (2007) Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards. Nature 447:202–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carretero MA (2004) Form set menu to a la carte. Linking issues in trophic ecology of Mediterranean lizards. Ital J Zool Supp 2:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carretero MA (2008) An integrated assessment of the specific status in a group with complex systematics: the Iberomaghrebian lizard genus Podarcis (Squamata, Lacertidae). Integr Zool 4:247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carretero MA, Llorente GA (2001) What are they really eating? Stomach versus intestine as sources of diet information in lacertids. In: Vicente L, Crespo EG (eds) Mediterranean basin lacertid lizards: a biological approach. ICN, Lisbon, pp 105–112Google Scholar
  24. Cooper WE Jr., Vitt LJ (1989) Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: paradoxical results. Am Nat 133:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diaz JA (1995) Prey selection by lacertid lizards: a short review. Herp J 5:245–251Google Scholar
  26. Drake AG, Klingenberg CP (2008) The pace of morphological change: historical transformation of skull shape in St Bernard dogs. Proc R Soc B 275:71–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris DJ, Sá-Sousa P (2002) Molecular phylogenetics of Iberian Wall Lizards (Podarcis): is Podarcis hispanica a species complex? Mol Phylogenet Evol 23:75–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herrel A, O’Reilly JC (2006) Ontogenetic scaling of bite force in lizards and turtles. Phys Biochem Zool 79:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herrel A, Van Damme R, de Vree F (1996) Sexual dimorphism of head size in Podarcis hispanica atrata: testing the dietary divergence hypothesis by bite force analysis. Neth J Zool 46:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herrel A, Aerts P, De Vree F (1998a) Ecomorphology of the lizard feeding apparatus: a modelling approach. Neth J Zool 48:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrel A, Aerts P, De Vree F (1998b) Static biting in lizards: functional morphology of the temporal ligaments. J Zool Lond 244:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herrel A, de Grauw E, Lemos-Espinal JA (2001a) Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. J Exp Zool 290:101–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herrel A, Meyers JJ, Vanhooydonck B (2001b) Correlations between habitat use and body shape in a phrynosomatid lizard (Urosaurus ornatus): a population-level analysis. Biol J Linn Soc 74:305–314Google Scholar
  34. Herrel A, Meyers J, Nishikawa KC, De Vree F (2001c) The evolution of feeding motor patterns in lizards: modulatory complexity and possible constraints. Am Zool 41:1311–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herrel A, Van Damme R, Vanhooydonck B, De Vree F (2001d) The implications of bite performance for diet in two species of lacertid lizards. Can J Zool 79:662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herrel A, McBrayer LD, Larson PM (2010) Functional basis for sexual differences in bite force in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Biol J Linn Soc 91:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Husak JF, Fox SF (2008) Sexual selection on locomotor performance. Evol Ecol Res 10:213–228Google Scholar
  38. Husak JF, Lappin AK, Fox SF, Lemos-Espinal JA (2006a) Bite-force performance predicts dominance in male venerable collared lizards (Crotaphytus antiquus). Copeia 2006:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Husak JF, Fox SF, Lovern MB, van den Bussche RA (2006b) Faster lizards sire more offspring: sexual selection on whole-animal performance. Evolution 60:2122–2130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Husak JF, Lappin AK, van den Bussche RA (2009) The fitness advantage of a high-performance weapon. Biol J Linn Soc 96:840–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huyghe K, Vanhooydonck B, Scheers H, Molina-Borja M, Van Damme R (2005) Morphology, performance and fighting capacity in male lizards, Gallotia galloti. Funct Ecol 19:800–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Huyghe K, Herrel A, Adriaens D, Tadić Z, Van Damme R (2009) It is all in the head: morphological basis for differences in bite force among colour morphs of the Dalmatian wall lizard. Biol J Linn Soc 96:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Irschick DJ, Herrel A, Vanhooydonck B, Van Damme R (2007) A functional approach to sexual selection. Funct Ecol 21:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Irschick DJ, Meyers JJ, Husak JF, Le Galliard JF (2008) How does selection operate on whole-organism functional performance capacities? A review and synthesis. Evol Ecol Res 10:177–196Google Scholar
  45. Kaliontzopoulou A, Carretero MA, Llorente GA (2006) Patterns of shape and size sexual dimorphism in a population of Podarcis hispanica* (Reptilia: Lacertidae) from NE Iberia. In: Corti C, Lo Cascio P, Biaggini M (eds) Mainland and insular lacertid lizards: a mediterranean perspective. Firenze University Press, Firenze, pp 73–89Google Scholar
  46. Kaliontzopoulou A, Carretero MA, Llorente GA (2007) Multivariate and geometric morphometrics in the analysis of sexual dimorphism variation in Podarcis lizards. J Morphol 268:152–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaliontzopoulou A, Carretero MA, Llorente GA (2008) Head shape allometry and proximate causes of head sexual dimorphism in Podarcis lizards: joining linear and geometric morphometrics. Biol J Linn Soc 93:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaliontzopoulou A, Carretero MA, Llorente GA (2010) Intraspecific ecomorphological variation: linear and geometric morphometrics reveal habitat-related patterns within Podarcis bocagei wall lizards. J Evol Biol 23:1234–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaliontzopoulou A, Pinho C, Harris DJ, Carretero MA (2011) When cryptic diversity blurs the picture: a cautionary tale from Iberian and North African Podarcis wall lizards. Biol J Linn Soc 103:779–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kingsolver J, Huey RB (2003) Introduction: the evolution of morphology, performance, and fitness. Integr Comp Biol 43:361–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kratochvíl L, Frynta D (2002) Body size, male combat and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in eublepharid geckos (Squamata: Eublepharidae). Biol J Linn Soc 76:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kratochvíl L, Fokt M, Rehák I, Frynta D (2003) Misinterpretation of character scaling: a tale of sexual dimorphism in body shape of common lizards. Can J Zool 81:1112–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lailvaux SP, Irschick DJ (2006) A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects. Anim Behav 72:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lailvaux SP, Irschick DJ (2007) The evolution of performance-based male fighting ability in Caribbean Anolis lizards. Am Nat 170:573–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lappin AK, Husak JF (2005) Weapon performance, not size, determines mating success and potential reproductive output in the collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris). Am Nat 166:426–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lappin AK, Hamilton PS, Sullivan BK (2006) Bite-performance and head shape in a sexually dimorphic crevice-dwelling lizard, the common chuckwalla [Sauromalus ater (=obesus)]. Biol J Linn Soc 88:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd English edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  58. Ljubisavljević K, Urosević A, Aleksić I, Ivanović A (2010) Sexual dimorphism of skull shape in a lacertid lizard species (Podarcis spp., Dalmatolacerta sp., Dinarolacerta sp.) revealed by geometric morphometrics. Zoology 113:168–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Losos JB, Butler MA, Schoener TW (2003) Sexual dimorphism in body size and shape in relation to habitat use among species of Caribbean Anolis lizards. In: Fox SF, McCoy JK, Baird TA (eds) Lizard social behaviour. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 356–380Google Scholar
  60. Maerz JC, Myers EM, Adams DC (2006) Trophic polymorphism in a terrestrial salamander. Evol Ecol Res 8:23–35Google Scholar
  61. McBrayer LD (2004) The relationship between skull morphology, biting performance and foraging mode in Kalahari lacertid lizards. Zool J Linn Soc 140:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Measey GJ, Hopkins K, Tolley KA (2009) Morphology, ornaments and performance in two chameleon ecomorphs: is the casque bigger than the bite? Zoology 112:217–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Metzger KA, Herrel A (2005) Correlations between lizard cranial shape and diet: a quantitative, phylogenetically informed analysis. Biol J Linn Soc 86:433–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mosimann JE (1970) Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 65:930–945Google Scholar
  65. Perrin N, Travis J (1992) On the use of constraints in evolutionary biology and some allergic reactions to them. Funct Ecol 6:361–363Google Scholar
  66. Perry G, Pianka ER (1997) Animal foraging: past, present and future. Trends Ecol Evol 12:360–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pianka ER (1973) The structure of lizard communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pinho C, Ferrand N, Harris DJ (2006) Reexamination of the Iberian and North African Podarcis (Squamata: Lacertidae) phylogeny based on increased mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Mol Phylogenet Evol 38:266–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Piras P, Salvi D, Ferrara G, Maiorino L, Delfino M, Pedde L, Kotsakis T (2011) The role of postnatal ontogeny in the evolution of phenotypic diversity in Podarcis lizards. J Evol Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  70. Preest MR (1994) Sexual size dimorphism and feeding energetics in Anolis carolinensis: why do females take smaller prey than males? J Herpetol 28:292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raia P, Guarino FM, Turano M, Polese G, Rippa D, Carotenuto F, Monti DM, Cardi M, Fulgione D (2010) The blue lizard spandrel and the island syndrome. BMC Evol Biol 10:289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rivera G (2008) Ecomorphological variation in shell shape of the freshwater turtle Pseudemys concinna inhabiting different aquatic flow regimes. Integr Comp Biol 48:769–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rohlf FJ (2005) tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines, version 2.04. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  74. Rohlf FJ (2008) tpsRelw, relative warps analysis, version 1.46. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  75. Rohlf FJ (2009) tpsRegr, version 1.37. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  76. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (1990) Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sá-Sousa P (2001) A controversa sistemática das lagartixas do género Podarcis Wagler, 1830 (Sauria, Lacertidae) em Portugal. PhD thesis, University of Lisbon, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  79. Sá-Sousa P, Vicente L, Crespo EG (2002) Morphological variability of Podarcis hispanica (Sauria: Lacertidae) in Portugal. Amphib Reptilia 23:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schwenk K (2000) Feeding in lepidosaurs. In: Schwenk K (ed) Feeding: form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 175–291Google Scholar
  81. Slice DE (1999) Morpheus et al.: software for morphometric research. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  82. Slice DE (2005) Modern morphometrics. In: Slice DE (ed) Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. Kluwer, New York, pp 1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stamps J (1983) Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and territoriality. In: Huey RB, Pianka ER, Schoener TW (eds) Lizard ecology: studies of a model organism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–204Google Scholar
  84. Stuart-Fox D, Moussalli A (2007) Sex-specific ecomorphological variation and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in dwarf chameleons (Bradypodion spp.). J Evol Biol 20:1073–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. R Development Core Team (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  86. Toro E, Herrel A, Irschich D (2004) The evolution of jumping performance in Caribbean Anolis lizards: solutions to biomechanical trade-offs. Am Nat 163:844–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vanhooydonck B, Van Damme R (1999) Evolutionary relationships between body shape and habitat use in lacertid lizards. Evol Ecol Res 1:785–805Google Scholar
  88. Verwaijen D, Van Damme R, Herrel A (2002) Relationships between head size, bite force, prey handling efficiency and diet in two sympatric lacertid species. Funct Ecol 16:842–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vincent SE, Herrel A (2007) Functional and ecological correlates of ecologically-based dimorphisms in squamate reptiles. Integr Comp Biol 47:172–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP, Zani PA, Titus TA (1997) The role of habitat shift in the evolution of lizard morphology: evidence from tropical Tropidurus. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 94:3828–3832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wainwright PC (2007) Functional versus morphological diversity in macroevolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Walker JA (2007) A general model of functional constraints on phenotypic evolution. Am Nat 170:681–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Young MT, Brusatte SL, Ruta M, De Andrade MB (2010) The evolution of Metriorhynchoidea (Mesoeucrocodylia, Thalattosuchia): an integrated approach using geometric morphometrics, analysis of disparity, and biomechanics. Zool J Linn Soc 158:801–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antigoni Kaliontzopoulou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dean C. Adams
    • 2
    • 3
  • Arie van der Meijden
    • 1
  • Ana Perera
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Carretero
    • 1
  1. 1.CIBIO/UP, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos GenéticosVairãoPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal BiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations