4.2 Article

Morphological traits as predictors of diet and microhabitat use in a diverse beetle assemblage

Journal

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 102, Issue 2, Pages 301-310

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01580.x

Keywords

Coleoptera; convergence; ecomorphology; insect; morphological diversity; phylogeny; principal components analysis

Funding

  1. CSIRO OCE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We explored how morphological traits can complement phylogenetic information to extend our predictions of the ecology of a diverse beetle assemblage. We analysed ten morphological traits from an assemblage of 239 species from 35 families, and identified three axes of morphological variation that were independent of body length: (1) relative robustness; (2) relative appendage length; and (3) relative abdomen length. The trait associations defining these axes of morphological variation did not change after adjusting for family-level phylogeny. We detected significant differences in morphological variation across the beetle assemblage according to diet and microhabitat use, and these patterns were only partially influenced by family membership. Further analysis within dominant families showed that species of Carabidae, Curculionidae, Scarabaeidae and Staphylinidae had greater body length in open versus tree litter microhabitat, and species of Carabidae and Curculionidae had greater relative robustness, but shorter relative appendage length, in open versus tree litter microhabitat. Although it is clear that family-level phylogeny and morphology share some explanatory power for predicting the diet and microhabitat use by beetles, we demonstrate that body length, robustness and appendage length are correlated significantly with microhabitat use when comparing members of the same family. (C) 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 102, 301-310.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available