Eye‐body allometry across biphasic ontogeny in anuran amphibians

19Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Animals with biphasic lifecycles often inhabit different visual environments across ontogeny. Many frogs and toads (Amphibia: Anura) have free-living aquatic larvae (tadpoles) that metamorphose into adults that inhabit a range of aquatic and terrestrial environments. Ecological differences influence eye size across species, but these relationships have not yet been explored across life stages in an ontogenetic allometric context. We examined eye-body size scaling in a species with aquatic larvae and terrestrial adults, the common frog Rana temporaria, using a well-sampled developmental series. We found a shift in ontogenetic allometric trajectory near metamorphosis indicating prioritized growth in tadpole eyes. To explore the effects of different tadpole and adult ecologies on eye-body scaling, we expanded our taxonomic sampling to include developmental series of eleven additional anuran species. Intraspecific eye-body scaling was variable among species, with 8/12 species exhibiting a significant change in allometric slope between tadpoles and adults. Traits categorizing both tadpole ecology (microhabitat, eye position, mouth position) and adult ecology (habitat, activity pattern) across species had significant effects on allometric slopes among tadpoles, but only tadpole eye position had a significant effect among adults. Our study suggests that relative eye growth in the preliminary stages of biphasic anuran ontogenies is somewhat decoupled and may be shaped by both immediate ecological need (i.e. tadpole visual requirements) and what will be advantageous during later adult stages.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shrimpton, S. J., Streicher, J. W., Gower, D. J., Bell, R. C., Fujita, M. K., Schott, R. K., & Thomas, K. N. (2021). Eye‐body allometry across biphasic ontogeny in anuran amphibians. Evolutionary Ecology, 35(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-021-10102-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free