Phenotype and animal domestication: A study of dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Sus scrofa

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Evin, Allowen ^a,b   Dobney, Keith ^a   Schafberg, Renate ^c   Owen, Joseph ^a,d,e   Strand Vidarsdottir, Una ^e   Larson, Greger ^e   Cucchi, Thomas ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

^c MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^d SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Artificial selection; Biogeography; Geometric morphometrics; Molars; Natural selection; Teeth

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL ECOSYSTEM; CAPTIVE POPULATION; DENTITION; DOMESTICATION; HYBRID; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MORPHOLOGY; NATURAL SELECTION; PHENOTYPE; PHYLOGEOGRAPHY; PIG; RECOLONIZATION; WILD POPULATION;

CORSE; FRANCE; ITALY; SARDINIA;

ANIMALIA; SUIDAE; SUS SCROFA; SUS SCROFA DOMESTICA;

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; DOMESTIC ANIMAL; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; HUMAN; HYBRIDIZATION; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PIG; TOOTH;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, DOMESTIC; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMANS; HYBRIDIZATION, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; SUS SCROFA; TOOTH;

EID: 84924200297     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712148     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12862-014-0269-x     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Bartley MM. Darwin and domestication: Studies on inheritance. J Hist Biol. 1992;25:307-33.
2. Darwin C. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. London: Murray, John; 1868.
3. Larson G, Cucchi T, Fujita M, Matisoo-Smith E, Robins J, Anderson A, et al. Phylogeny and ancient DNA of Sus provides insights into neolithic expansion in Island Southeast Asia and Oceania. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:4834-9.
4. Rubin C-J, Megens H-J, Barrio MA, Maqbool K, Sayyab S, Schwochow D, et al. Strong signatures of selection in the domestic pig genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:19529-36.
5. Groenen MAM, Archibald AL, Uenishi H, Tuggle CK, Takeuchi Y, Rothschild MF, et al. Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution. Nature. 2012;491:393-8.
6. Albarella U, Dobney K, Rowley-Conwy P. Size and shape of the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), with a view to the reconstruction of its Holocene history. Environ Archaeol. 2009;14:103-36.
7. Vigne J. The origins of animal domestication and husbandry : A major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere. C R Biol. 2011;334:171-81.
8. Mayer JJ, Brisbin IL. Wild Pigs in the United States: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status. Athens and london: University of Georgia Press; 1991.
9. Price EO. Animal Domestication and Behavior. Wallingford, New York: CABI Publishing; 2002.
10. Rowley-Conwy P, Albarella U, Dobney K. Distinguishing Wild Boar from Domestic Pigs in Prehistory: A Review of Approaches and Recent Results. J World Prehistory. 2012;25:1-44.
11. Groves CP. Ancestors for the Pigs: Taxonomy and Phylogeny of the Genus Sus. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University; 1981.
12. Groves CP. Current views on taxonomy and zoogeography of the genus Sus. In: Albarella U, Dobney K, Rowley-Conwy P, editors. Pigs and Humans: 10,000 years of interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 15-29.
13. O'Regan HJ, Kitchener AC. The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mamm Rev. 2005;35:215-30.
14. Porter V. Mason's World Dictionnary of Liverstock Breeds, Types and Varieties. 5th ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2002.
15. Porter V. Pigs, A Handbook to the Breeds of the World. East Sussex, UK: Helm Information Ltd; 1993.
16. McDade L. Hybrids and phylogenetic systematics I. Patterns of character expression in hybrids and their implications for cladistic analysis. Evolution. 1990;44:1685-700.
17. Rieseberg LH, Ellstrand NC, Arnold M. What Can Molecular and Morphological Markers Tell Us About Plant Hybridization? CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci. 1993;12:213-41.
18. Randi E, Apollonio M, Toso S. The systematics of some italian populations of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): a craniometric and electrophoretic analysis. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkd. 1989;54:40-56.
19. Apollonio M, Randi E, Toso S. The systematics of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in Italy. Bolletino di Zool. 1988;55:213-21.
20. Genov P, Nikolovg H, Massei G, Gerasimov S. Craniometrical analysis of Bulgarian wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations. J Zool. 1991;225:309-25.
21. Scandura M, Iacolina L, Apollonio M. Genetic diversity in the European wild boar Sus scrofa: phylogeography, population structure and wild x domestic hybridization. Mamm Rev. 2011;41:125-37.
22. Larson G, Burger J. A population genetics view of animal domestication. Trends Genet. 2013;29:197-205.
23. Marshall FB, Dobney K, Denham T, Capriles JM. Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:6153-8.
24. Long JL. Introduced Mammals of the World. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing; 2003. p. 589.
25. Vigne J-D. Les Mammifères Post-Glaciaires de Corse. Etude Archéozoologique. Ed. du CNRS. Paris: XXVI° supplément à "Gallia Préhistoire"; 1988.
26. Vigne J-D. Zooarchaeology and the biogeographical history of the mammals of Corsica and Sardinia since the last ice age. Mamm Rev. 1992;22:87-96.
27. Larson G, Dobney K, Albarella U, Fang M, Matisoo-Smith E, Robins J, et al. Worldwide phylogeography of wild boar reveals multiple centers of pig domestication. Science. 2005;307:1618-21.
28. Albarella U, Manconi F, Rowley-Conwy P, Vigne J-D. Pigs of Corsica and Sardinia: a biometrical re-evaluation of their status and history. J Intercult Interdiscip Archaeol 2006;285-302
29. Foster JB. Evolution of Mammals on Islands. Nature. 1964;202:234-5.
30. Mayr E. The challenge of island faunas. Aust Nat Hist. 1967;15:359-74.
31. Vigne J-D, Peters J, Helmer D. The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeozoological Techniques (Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference). Oxford: Oxbow Books Limited; 2005.
32. Cucchi T, Hulme-Beaman A, Yuan J, Dobney K. Early Neolithic pig domestication at Jiahu, Henan Province, China: clues from molar shape analyses using geometric morphometric approaches. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38:11-22.
33. Evin A, Cucchi T, Cardini A, Strand Vidarsdottir U, Larson G, Dobney K. The long and winding road: identifying pig domestication through molar size and shape. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40:735-43.
34. Seetah K, Cucchi T, Dobney K, Barker G. A geometric morphometric re-evaluation of the use of dental form to explore differences in horse (Equus caballus) populations and its potential zooarchaeological application. J Archaeol Sci. 2014;41:904-10.
35. Owen J, Dobney K, Evin A, Cucchi T, Larson G, Strand Vidarsdottir U. The zooarchaeological application of quantifying cranial shape differences in wild boar and domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) using 3D geometric morphometrics. J Archaeol Sci. 2014;43:159-67.
36. Cucchi T, Fujita M, Dobney K. New insights into pig taxonomy, domestication and human dispersal in Island South East Asia: molar shape analysis of Sus remains from Niah Caves, Sarawak. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2009;19:508-30.
37. Scandura M, Iacolina L, Crestanello B, Pecchioli E, Di Benedetto MF, Russo V, et al. Ancient vs. recent processes as factors shaping the genetic variation of the European wild boar: are the effects of the last glaciation still detectable? Mol Ecol. 2008;17:1745-62.
38. Pond WG, Mersmann HJ. Biology of the Domestic Pig. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; 2001.
39. Vigne J-D. Faciès culturels et sous-système technique de l'acquisition des ressources animales. Application au Néolithique ancien méditerranéen. In: Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire récente. Deuxième session, Arles, 1996. Antibes: Editions APDCA; 1998. p. 27-45.
40. Rehfeldt C, Henning M, Fiedler I. Consequences of pig domestication for skeletal muscle growth and cellularity. Livest Sci. 2008;116:30-41.
41. Clutton-Brock J. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.
42. Albarella U, Dobney K, Rowley-Conwy P. The domestication of the Pig (Sus scrofa): New Challenges and Approaches. In: Zeder MA, Bradley DG, Emshwiller E, Smith BD, editors. Documenting domestication: new genetic and archaeological paradigms. Berkley: University of California Press; 2006. p. 209-27.
43. Dobney K, Cucchi T, Larson G. The Pigs of Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific: New Evidence for Taxonomic Status and Human-Mediated Dispersal. Asian Perspect. 2009;44:59-74.
44. Wayne RK. Cranial Morphology of Domestic and Wild Canids: The Influence of Development on Morphological Change. Evolution. 1986;40:243-61.
45. Drake AG, Klingenberg CP. Large-Scale Diversification of Skull Shape in Domestic Dogs: Disparity and Modularity. Am Nat. 2010;175:289-301.
46. Wilcox B, Walkowicz C. The Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World. 5th ed. Neptune City: T.F.H. Publications; 1995.
47. Caumul R, Polly PD. Phylogenetic and environmental components of morphological variation: skull, mandible, and molar shape in marmots (Marmota, Rodentia). Evolution. 2005;59:2460-72.
48. Ervynck A, Dobney K, Hongo H, Meadow R. Born Free? New Evidence for the Status of Sus scrofa at Neolithic C¸ayönü Tepesi (Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey). Paléorient. 2001;27:47-73.
49. Evin A, Girdland Flink L, Balac¸sescu A, Popovici D, Adreescu R, Bailey D, et al. Unravelling the complexity of domestication: A case study using morphometrics and aDNA analyses of archaeological pigs from Romania. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1660):pii: 20130616.
50. Renaud S, Pantalacci S, Quéré J-P, Laudet V, Auffray J-C. Developmental constraints revealed by co-variation within and among molar rows in two murine rodents. Evol Dev. 2009;11:590-602.
51. Alexandri P, Triantafyllidis A, Papakostas S, Chatzinikos E, Platis P, Papageorgiou N, et al. The Balkans and the colonization of Europe: the post-glacial range expansion of the wild boar, Sus scrofa. J Biogeogr. 2012;39:713-23.
52. Genov PV. A review of the cranial characteristics of the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus 1758), with systematic conclusions. Mamm Rev. 1999;29:205-34.
53. Bergmann C. Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Gottinger Stud. 1847;3:595-708.
54. Rensch B. Some problems of geographical variation and species formation. Proc Linn Soc London. 1938;150:275-85.
55. Meiri S, Dayan T. On the validity of Bergmann's rule. J Biogeogr. 2003;30:331-51.
56. Davis SJM. The effects of temperature change and domestication on the body size of late pleistocene to holocene mammals of Israel. Paleobiology. 1981;7:101-14.
57. Weaver ME, Ingram DL. Morphological Changes in Swine Associated with Environmental Temperature. Ecology. 1969;50:710-3.
58. Schaaf A. Beziehung zwischen Körper-, Skelett- und Schädelmaßen und dem Ansatz von Fleisch und Fett beim Schwein. In: Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, Vol. 2, Deutsche Akademie der Landwirtschaft zu Berlin. Leipzig: Hirzel; 1953.
59. Fang M, Larson G, Ribeiro HS, Li N, Andersson L. Contrasting mode of evolution at a coat color locus in wild and domestic pigs. PLoS Genet. 2009;5:e1000341.
60. Zohary D, Tchernov E, Horwitz LK. The role of unconscious selection in the domestication of sheep and goats. J Zool. 1998;245:129-35.
61. Lacy RC, Petric A, Warneke M. Inbreeding and outbreeding in captive populations of wild animal species. In: The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Thornhill NW. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press; 1993. p. 352-74.
62. Renaud S, Alibert P, Auffray J-C. Mandible shape in hybrid mice. Naturwissenschaften. 2009;96:1043-50.
63. Poplin F, Vigne J-D. Observations sur l'origine des ovins en Corse. Congrès de la Société Préhistorique de France, XX ème Session, Quercy, 1979. Société Préhistorique Fr. 1983;2:238-45.
64. Poplin F. Origine du Mouflon de Corse dans une nouvelle perspective paléontologique: par marronnage. Ann Génétique Sélection Anim. 1979;11:133-43.
65. Vigne J-D, Zazzo A, Saliège J-F, Poplin F, Guilaine J, Simmons A. Pre-Neolithic wild boar management and introduction to Cyprus more than 11,400 years ago. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:16135-8.
66. Millien V. Morphological evolution is accelerated among island mammals. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e321.
67. Lomolino MV. Body size of mammals on islands: the island rule reexamined. Am Nat. 1985;125:310-6.
68. Lomolino MV. Body size evolution in insular vertebrates: generality of the island rule. J Biogeogr. 2005;32:1683-99.
69. Van Valen LM. Pattern and the balance of nature. Evol Theory. 1973;1:31-49.
70. Kruska D, Röhrs M. Comparative-quantitative investigations on brains of feral pigs from the Galapagos Islands and of European domestic pigs. Z Anat Entwicklungsgesch. 1974;144:61-73.
71. McIntosh GH, Pointon A. The Kangaroo Island strain of pig In biomedical research. Aust Vet J. 1981;57:182-5.
72. Manlius N, Gautier A. Le sanglierr en Egypte. Comptes Rendus l'Académie des Sci - Sci la vie. 1999;322:573-7.
73. Evin A, Cucchi T, Escarguel G, Owen J, Larson G, Strand Vidarsdottir U, et al. Using traditional biometrical data to distinguish West Palearctic wild boar and domestic pigs in the archaeological record: New methods and standards. J Archaeol Sci. 2014;43:1-8.
74. Rohlf FJ. tpsDig, Digitize Landmarks and Outlines, Version 2.16. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook; 2010 [http://life.bio.sunysb. edu/morph/]
75. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes Method for the Optimal Superimposition of Landmarks. Syst Biol. 1990;39:40-59.
76. Goodall CR. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape revisited. In: Mardia KV, Gill CA E, editors. Current issues in statistical shape analysis. Leeds: University of Leeds Press; 1995. p. 18-33.
77. Sampson PD, Bookstein FL, Sheenan FH, Bolson EL. Eigenshape analysis of left ventricular outlines from contrast ventriculograms. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylar GJP, Slice DE, editors. Advances in morphometrics. New York: NATO ASI Series A: Life Sciences, Plenum; 1996. p. 211-33.
78. Perez SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN. Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. J Anat. 2006;208:769-84.
79. Zelditch M, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer. San Diego, London: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
80. Sheets HD, Keonho K, Mitchell CE. A combined landmark and outline-based approach to ontogenetic shape change in the Ordovician Trilobite Triarthrus becki. In: Elewa A, editor. Applications of Morphometrics in Paleontology and Biology. New York: Springer; 2004. p. 67-81.
81. Rohlf FJ. tpsRelw, Relative warps Analysis, version 1.49. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook; 2010 [http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ morph/]
82. Baylac M. Rmorph: a R geometric and multivariate morphometrics library. 2012. Available from the author: baylac@mnhn.fr.
83. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012.
84. Monteiro LR. Multivariate regression models and geometric morphometrics: the search for causal factors in the analysis of shape. Syst Biol. 1999;48:192-9.
85. Baylac M, Friess M. Fourier descriptors, procrustes superimposition and data dimensionality: an example of cranial shape analysis in modern human populations. In: Slice DE, editor. Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005. p. 145-65.
86. Sheets HD, Covino KM, Panasiewicz JM, Morris SR. Comparison of geometric morphometric outline methods in the discrimination of age-related differences in feather shape. Front Zool. 2006;3:15.
87. Kovarovic K, Aiello LC, Cardini A, Lockwood CA. Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true? J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38:1-13.
88. Mahalanobis PC. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc Natl Inst Sci India. 1936;2:49-55.
89. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995;57:289-300.
90. Dray S, Dufour AB. The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw 2007, 4
91. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:289-90.
92. Evin A (2014) Phenotypic change in animal domestication: Dental variation between domestic, wild, captive, hybrid and insular Sus scrofa [datasets]. LabArchives. http://dx.doi.org/10.6070/H4ZK5DNC.