4.5 Article

ALTERNATE PATHWAYS OF BODY SHAPE EVOLUTION TRANSLATE INTO COMMON PATTERNS OF LOCOMOTOR EVOLUTION IN TWO CLADES OF LIZARDS

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 1569-1582

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00935.x

关键词

Body shape; kinematics; locomotion; performance; substrate

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada PGS-D scholarship
  2. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
  3. Sigma Xi
  4. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
  5. NSF [IOB 0421917]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Body shape has a fundamental impact on organismal function, but it is unknown how functional morphology and locomotor performance and kinematics relate across a diverse array of body shapes. We showed that although patterns of body shape evolution differed considerably between lizards of the Phrynosomatinae and Lerista, patterns of locomotor evolution coincided between clades. Specifically, we found that the phrynosomatines evolved a stocky phenotype through body widening and limb shortening, whereas Lerista evolved elongation through body lengthening and limb shortening. In both clades, relative limb length played a key role in locomotor evolution and kinematic strategies, with long-limbed species moving faster and taking longer strides. In Lerista, the body axis also influenced locomotor evolution. Similar patterns of locomotor evolution were likely due to constraints on how the body can move. However, these common patterns of locomotor evolution between the two clades resulted in different kinematic strategies and levels of performance among species because of their morphological differences. Furthermore, we found no evidence that distinct body shapes are adaptations to different substrates, as locomotor kinematics did not change on loose or solid substrates. Our findings illustrate the importance of studying kinematics to understand the mechanisms of locomotor evolution and phenotype-function relationships.

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

4.5
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