4.7 Article

Evolutionary allometry and ecological correlates of fang length evolution in vipers

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.1132

关键词

viper; adaptation; tooth; fang; allometry

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1711141]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that there is both phylogenetic signal and within-clade variation in relative fang length across viper species, indicating both general taxonomic trends and potential adaptive divergence. Longer fangs have evolved proportionally in larger species, potentially aiding in injecting venom into larger prey. By including temperature and diet data, models of fang length evolution can be improved, especially in relation to the extent to which diets are mammal-heavy.
Traits for prey acquisition form the phenotypic interface of predator-prey interactions. In venomous predators, morphological variation in venom delivery apparatus like fangs and stingers may be optimized for dispatching prey. Here, we determine how a single dimension of venom injection systems evolves in response to variation in the size, climatic conditions and dietary ecology of viperid snakes. We measured fang length in more than 1900 museum specimens representing 199 viper species (55% of recognized species). We find both phylogenetic signal and within-clade variation in relative fang length across vipers suggesting both general taxonomic trends and potential adaptive divergence in fang length. We recover positive evolutionary allometry and little static allometry in fang length. Proportionally longer fangs have evolved in larger species, which may facilitate venom injection in more voluminous prey. Finally, we leverage climatic and diet data to assess the global correlates of fang length. We find that models of fang length evolution are improved through the inclusion of both temperature and diet, particularly the extent to which diets are mammal-heavy diets. These findings demonstrate how adaptive variation can emerge among components of complex prey capture systems.

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

4.7
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