4.3 Article

Constraints associated with captivity alter craniomandibular integration in wild boar

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANATOMY
卷 239, 期 2, 页码 489-497

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/joa.13425

关键词

cranium; domestication; geometric morphometrics; modularity; morphological integration; skull

资金

  1. Association Sorbonne Universite [SU-19-3-EMRG-02]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-10-LABX-0003-BCDiv, ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02, ANR-13-JSH3-0003-01]
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-JSH3-0003] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The domestication process is associated with substantial phenotypic changes and captivity can lead to a lower level of integration between cranial and mandibular structures. Plastic responses to captivity may affect the magnitude of integration of key functional structures in domestic animals.
The domestication process is associated with substantial phenotypic changes through time. However, although morphological integration between biological structures is purported to have a major influence on the evolution of new morphologies, little attention has been paid to the influence of domestication on the magnitude of integration. Here, we assessed the influence of constraints associated with captivity, considered as one of the crucial first steps in the domestication process, on the integration of cranial and mandibular structures. We investigated the craniomandibular integration in Western European Sus scrofa using three-dimensional (3D) landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Our results suggest that captivity is associated with a lower level of integration between the cranium and the mandible. Plastic responses to captivity can thus affect the magnitude of integration of key functional structures. These findings underline the critical need to develop integration studies in the context of animal domestication to better understand the processes accountable for the set-up of domestic phenotypes through time.

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

4.3
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