Abstract

We study the geographical variation of the skull in the cavies Microcavia australis and M. maenas and its association with environmental variables. We tested four hypotheses previously proposed to explain the geographic patterns of morphological variation i) heat conservation; ii) heat dissipation; iii) primary productivity and iv) seasonality. We used 16 cranial measurements taken from 180 individuals. We analyzed the spatial variation in cranial morphology through Generalized Additive Models. Both species showed a north-south clinal gradient in skull size (increasing towards colder, less seasonal environments, with lower summer rainfalls in M. australis and towards warmer and seasonal environments in M. maenas). Microcavia australis presented greater ecomorphological variability than M. maenas, in agreement with its wider distribution and occurrence in more diverse environments. Also, the length of tympanic bullae in M. australis was larger towards its northern distributional range (associated to smaller skulls), and smaller to the south (associated to larger skulls). Overall, the distributional range of both species coincided with unproductive environments, where temperature represents a limiting factor and, together with rainfall, might determine the observed morphological patterns.

Highlights

  • The association between mammal body size and the variation in environmental conditions has been largely analyzed (e.g., Rosenzweig 1968a, Brown & Lee 1969, McNab 1971, Boyce 1978, Kennedy & Lindsay 1984, Ralls & Harvey 1985, Ritke & Kennedy 1988, Owen 1989, Sikes & Kennedy 1992)

  • Our results show that M. australis presented greater ecomorphological variability than M. maenas

  • Both species showed a north-south clinal gradient of cranial size variation, which could be explained by the hypothesis that size is more prone to change due to environmental variations, while shape would be genetically controlled (Patton & Brylski 1987, Cardini & Elton 2009, Maestri et al 2016)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The association between mammal body size and the variation in environmental conditions has been largely analyzed (e.g., Rosenzweig 1968a, Brown & Lee 1969, McNab 1971, Boyce 1978, Kennedy & Lindsay 1984, Ralls & Harvey 1985, Ritke & Kennedy 1988, Owen 1989, Sikes & Kennedy 1992). According to Endler (1983) and Thorpe (1984), the causes of geographic variation can be divided in two large groups: i) historic processes, or phylogeny; and ii) current ecological processes. Variation due to current ecological processes results from the balance between gene flow and natural selection derived from biological conditions (e.g., interspecific competitions) or physics (e.g., adaptation to climate conditions) (Thorpe 1987). In this context, four hypotheses to explain

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call