5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparative morphology of the humerus in forward-burrowing frogs

      1 , 1 , 2
      Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Burrowing is one of the many locomotor modes of frogs (order Anura) and is found within many clades. Burrowing is generally categorized into two groups: forward-burrowing and backward-burrowing. While forward-burrowing is more rare than backward-burrowing, we show that it has evolved independently at least eight times across anurans and is correlated with distinct features of the external and internal anatomy. The shape of the humerus is especially important for forward-burrowing, as many species use their forelimbs for digging. Using X-ray computed tomography data, we characterize shape variation in the humerus, including three-dimensional (3D) morphometrics, assess the morphology of muscles related to this variation in the humerus, and discuss the mechanical and evolutionary consequences of our results. We show that the humeri of most forward-burrowing frogs are morphologically distinct from those of non-forward-burrowers, including features such as a curved and thick diaphysis, the presence of a pronounced ventral crest, and relatively large epicondyles and humeral head. Our findings also suggest that pectoral muscle anatomy differs substantially among burrowing modes in frogs. This work provides a framework for predicting locomotor modes in taxa for which the natural history is poorly known as well as extinct taxa.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species.

          Ecologists are increasingly adopting an evolutionary perspective, and in recent years, the idea that closely related species are ecologically similar has become widespread. In this regard, phylogenetic signal must be distinguished from phylogenetic niche conservatism. Phylogenetic niche conservatism results when closely related species are more ecologically similar that would be expected based on their phylogenetic relationships; its occurrence suggests that some process is constraining divergence among closely related species. In contrast, phylogenetic signal refers to the situation in which ecological similarity between species is related to phylogenetic relatedness; this is the expected outcome of Brownian motion divergence and thus is necessary, but not sufficient, evidence for the existence of phylogenetic niche conservatism. Although many workers consider phylogenetic niche conservatism to be common, a review of case studies indicates that ecological and phylogenetic similarities often are not related. Consequently, ecologists should not assume that phylogenetic niche conservatism exists, but rather should empirically examine the extent to which it occurs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life

              Human activities continue to erode the tree of life, requiring us to prioritize research and conservation. Amphibians represent key victims and bellwethers of global change, and the need for action to conserve them is drastically outpacing knowledge. We provide a phylogeny incorporating nearly all extant amphibians (7,238 species). Current amphibian diversity is composed of both older, depauperate lineages and extensive, more recent tropical radiations found in select clades. Frog and salamander diversification increased strongly after the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary, preceded by a potential mass-extinction event in salamanders. Diversification rates of subterranean caecilians varied little over time. Biogeographically, the Afro- and Neotropics harbour a particularly high proportion of Gondwanan relicts, comprising species with high evolutionary distinctiveness (ED). These high-ED species represent a large portion of the branches in the present tree: around 28% of all phylogenetic diversity comes from species in the top 10% of ED. The association between ED and imperilment is weak, but many species with high ED are now imperilled or lack formal threat status, suggesting opportunities for integrating evolutionary position and phylogenetic heritage in addressing the current extinction crisis. By providing a phylogenetic estimate for extant amphibians and identifying their threats and ED, we offer a preliminary basis for a quantitatively informed global approach to conserving the amphibian tree of life.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0024-4066
                1095-8312
                August 28 2020
                August 28 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
                [2 ]Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
                Article
                10.1093/biolinnean/blaa092
                3b449923-fc01-4309-9adf-814c76e5ba8e
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article