Phenotypic variability and heritability of the cephalic region of Caiman latirostris

Analysis of morphological variability and heritability in the head of the Argentine Black and White Tegu (Salvator merianae): undisturbed vs. disturbed environments

The heterogeneity of biotic and abiotic factors influencing fitness produce selective pressures that promote local adaptation and divergence among different populations of the same species. In order for adaptations to be maintained through evolutionary time, heritable genetic variation controlling the expression of the morphological features under selection is necessary. Here we compare morphological shape variability and size of the cephalic region of Salvator merianae specimens from undisturbed environments to those of individuals from disturbed environments, and estimated heritability for shape and size using geometric morphometric and quantitative genetics tools. The results of these analyzes indicated that there are statistically significant differences in shape and size between populations from the two environments. Possibly, one of the main determinants of cephalic shape and size is adaptation to the characteristics of the environment and to the trophic niche. Individuals from disturbed environments have a cephalic region with less shape variation and also have a larger centroid size when compared to individuals from undisturbed environments. The high heritability values obtained for shape and size in dorsal view and right side view indicate that these phenotypic characters have a great capacity to respond to the selection pressures to which they are subjected. Data obtained here could be used as an important tool when establishing guidelines for plans for the sustainable use and conservation of S. merianae and other species living in disturbed areas.

A potential pitfall in studies of biological shape: Does size matter?

The number of published studies using geometric morphometrics (GM) for analysing biological shape has increased steadily since the beginning of the 1990s, covering multiple research areas such as ecology, evolution, development, taxonomy and palaeontology. Unfortunately, we have observed that many published studies using GM do not evaluate the potential allometric effects of size on shape, which normally require consideration or assessment. This might lead to misinterpretations and flawed conclusions in certain cases, especially when size effects explain a large part of the shape variation. We assessed, for the first time and in a systematic manner, how often published studies that have applied GM consider the potential effects of allometry on shape. We reviewed the 300 most recent published papers that used GM for studying biological shape. We also estimated how much of the shape variation was explained by allometric effects in the reviewed papers. More than one-third (38%) of the reviewed studies did not consider the allometric component of shape variation. In studies where the allometric component was taken into account, it was significant in 88% of the cases, explaining up to 87.3% of total shape variation. We believe that one reason that may cause the observed results is a misunderstanding of the process that superimposes landmark configurations, i.e. the Generalized Procrustes Analysis, which removes isometric effects of size on shape, but not allometric effects. Allometry can be a crucial component of shape variation. We urge authors to address, and report, size effects in studies of biological shape. However, we do not propose to always remove size effects, but rather to evaluate the research question with and without the allometric component of shape variation. This approach can certainly provide a thorough understanding of how much size contributes to the observed shaped variation.