4.6 Article

The mark of captivity: plastic responses in the ankle bone of a wild ungulate (Sus scrofa)

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.192039

关键词

domestication; wild boar; phenotypic plasticity; locomotion; geometric morphometrics; experimentation

资金

  1. ANR, through the Domexp project [ANR-13-JSH3-0003-01]
  2. LabEx, programme 'Investissements d'avenir' [ANR-10-LABX-0003-BCDiv, ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02]
  3. Museum national d'Histoire naturelle (Paris)
  4. CNRS INEE (Institut ecologie et environnement)
  5. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-JSH3-0003, ANR-10-LABX-0003] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deciphering the plastic (non-heritable) changes induced by human control over wild animals in the archaeological record is challenging. We hypothesized that changes in locomotor behaviour in a wild ungulate due to mobility control could be quantified in the bone anatomy. To test this, we experimented with the effect of mobility reduction on the skeleton of wild boar (Sus scrofa), using the calcaneus shape as a possible phenotypic marker. We first assessed differences in shape variation and covariation in captive-reared and wild-caught wild boars, taking into account differences in sex, body mass, available space for movement and muscle force. This plastic signal was then contrasted with the phenotypic changes induced by selective breeding in domestic pigs. We found that mobility reduction induces a plastic response beyond the shape variation of wild boars in their natural habitat, associated with a reduction in the range of locomotor behaviours and muscle loads. This plastic signal of captivity in the calcaneus shape differs from the main changes induced by selective breeding for larger muscle and earlier development that impacted the pigs' calcaneus shape in a much greater extent than the mobility reduction during the domestication process of their wild ancestors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据