Scaling patterns of body plans differ among squirrel ecotypes

3Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Body size is often hypothesized to facilitate or constrain morphological diversity in the cranial, appendicular, and axial skeletons. However, how overall body shape scales with body size (i.e., body shape allometry) and whether these scaling patterns differ between ecological groups remains poorly investigated. Here, we test whether and how the relationships between body shape, body size, and limb lengths differ among species with different locomotor specializations, and describe the underlying morphological components that contribute to body shape evolution among squirrel (Sciuridae) ecotypes. We quantified the body size and shape of 87 squirrel species from osteological specimens held at museum collections. Using phylogenetic comparative methods, we first found that body shape and its underlying morphological components scale allometrically with body size, but these allometric patterns differ among squirrel ecotypes: chipmunks and gliding squirrels exhibited more elongate bodies with increasing body sizes whereas ground squirrels exhibited more robust bodies with increasing body size. Second, we found that only ground squirrels exhibit a relationship between forelimb length and body shape, where more elongate species exhibit relatively shorter forelimbs. Third, we found that the relative length of the ribs and elongation or shortening of the thoracic region contributes the most to body shape evolution across squirrels. Overall, our work contributes to the growing understanding of mammalian body shape evolution and how it is influenced by body size and locomotor ecology, in this case from robust subterranean to gracile gliding squirrels.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Linden, T. J., Burtner, A. E., Rickman, J., McFeely, A., Santana, S. E., & Law, C. J. (2023). Scaling patterns of body plans differ among squirrel ecotypes. PeerJ, 11. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14800

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