Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of forewing sexual dimorphism in mycalesisita
Paper Details
Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of forewing sexual dimorphism in mycalesisita
Abstract
This study presents the phenotypic variation in sexual dimorphism on wing shape of Mycalesisita. Butterfly wings hold highly diverse phenotypes as a result of interactions between adaptive processes, phylogenetic history and developmental constraints. The results of this study revealed that there is no considerable difference in wing morphology within sexes in both sites, though sexual dimorphism of wing shape between sexes is highly pronounced, completely separating the male and female M.ita. In addition, it is notable that male morphology is more stable across sites, having 45% portion of its population with uniform morphology compared to 27.5% portion of female population. This further emphasize the differences in the physiology and life history of male and female and suggest that female morphology may undergone or undergoing more changes overtime. Environmental isolation and varying level of gene pool could also one of the factors causing these variations. Hence, this study proved the ability of modern geometric morphometrics to distinguish body shape variations existing within and between populations of M.ita.
Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the revolution. Italian Journal of Zoology 71, 5-16.
Benítez H, Parra LE, Sepulveda E, Sanzana MJ. 2011. Geometric perspectives of sexual dimorphism in the wing shape of Lepidoptera: the case of Synneuria sp. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Journal of the Entomological Research Society 13(1), 53-60.
Braby MF. 1995. Seasonal-Changes in Relative Abundance and Spatial-Distribution of Australian Lowland Tropical Satyrine Butterflies. Australian Journal of Zoology 43(3), 209-229.
Bradshaw AD. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Advances in Genetics 13, 115–155.
Brakefield PM, Frankino WA. 2009. Polyphenisms in Lepidoptera: multidisciplinary approaches to studies of evolution. In: Phenotypic plasticity of insects: mechanisms and consequences (T. N. Ananthakrishnan & D. W. Whitman, Eds.). Science Publishers, Enfield, 121–152.
Dover J, Settele J. 2009. The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. Journal of Insect Conservation 12, 3-27.
Gidaszewski N, Baylac M, Klingenberg C. 2009. Evolution of sexual dimorphism of wing shape in the Drosophila melanogaster sub group. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9, 110.
Grant RP, Grant RB, Petren K. 2000. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 67, 287-317.
Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1), 1-9.
Hammer O. 2002. Morphometrics-brief notes. Palaontologisches Institute und Museum, Zurich. Zurich.
Hill JK, Collingham YC, Thomas CD, Blakeley DS, Fox R, Moss D, Huntley B. 2001. Impacts of landscape structure on butterfly range expansion. Ecology Letters 4, 313–321.
Hill JK, Thomas CD, Fox R, Telfer MG, Willis SG, Asher J, Huntley B. 2002. Responses of Butterfly to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B-Biological Science 269, 2163-2171.
Klingenberg CP. 2011. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular Ecology Resources 11, 353-357.
Kodandaramaiah U, Lees DC, Müller CJ, Torres E, Karanth KP, Wahlberg N. 2010. Phylogenetics and biogeography of a spectacular Old World radiation of butterflies: The subtribe Mycalesina (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrini). BMC Evolutionary Biology 10, 172-185.
Merckx T, Van Dyck H. 2006. Landscape structure and phenotypic plasticity in flight morphology in the butterfly Parargeaegeria. Oikos 113, 226–232.
Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF. 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 129–132.
Rohlf FJ. 2010. Tps Dig, digitize landmarks and outlines, version 2.16.Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Stearns SC, Koella JC. 1986. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in life-history traits – predictions of reaction norms for age and size at maturity. Evolution 40, 893–913.
Stearns SC. 1989. The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity, Phenotypic sources of variation among organisms can be described by developmental switches and reaction norms. Bioscience 39, 436–445.
Schlichting CD, Pigliucci M. 1998.Phenotypic evolution: a reaction norm perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
Sultan SE. 2003. Commentary: the promise of ecological developmental biology. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B-Molecular and Developmental Evolution 296 B, 1–7.
Sultan SE. 2004. Promising directions in plant phenotypic plasticity. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 6, 227–233.
West-Eberhard MJ. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499.
Turan C, Erguden D, Turan S, Gurlek M. 2004. Genetic and morphologic structure of Liza abu (Heckel, 1843) populations from the Rivers Orontes, Euphrates and Tigris. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 28, 729-734.
John M. Fabrigar, Noe P. Mendez, Glenda Z. Doblas, Alma B. Mohagan, 2018. Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of forewing sexual dimorphism in mycalesisita. J. Biodiv. Environ. Sci., 13(2), 18-29.
Copyright © 2018 by the Authors. This article is an open access article and distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.