Urban-rural differences in eye, bill, and skull allometry in house finches (haemorhous mexicanus)

Integrative and Comparative Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1215-1224

  Hutton, Pierce ^a   McGraw, Kevin J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; BEAK; BODY SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENT; EYE; FEMALE; FINCH; MALE; PHENOTYPE; RURAL POPULATION; SEX FACTOR; SKULL; URBAN POPULATION;

ANIMALS; BEAK; BODY SIZE; ENVIRONMENT; EYE; FEMALE; FINCHES; MALE; PHENOTYPE; RURAL POPULATION; SEX FACTORS; SKULL; URBAN POPULATION;

EID: 85021100287     PISSN: 15407063     EISSN: 15577023     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icb/icw077     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (55)

1. Abzhanov A, Kuo WP, Hartmann C, Grant BR, Grant PR, Tabin CJ. 2006. The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwins finches. Nature 442:563-7.
2. Amiel JJ, Tingley R, Shine R. 2011. Smart moves: effects of relative Brain size on establishment success of invasive amphibians and reptiles. PLoS One 6:4-7
3. Badyaev AV, Martin TE. 2000. Individual variation in growth trajectories: phenotypic and genetic correlations in ontogeny of the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). J Evol Biol 13:290-301.
4. Badyaev AV, Young RL, Oh KP, Addison C. 2008. Evolution on a local scale: developmental, functional, and genetic bases of divergence in bill form and associated changes in song structure between adjacent habitats. Evolution 62:1951-64.
5. Bolstad GH, Cassara JA, Marquez E, Hansen TF, van der Linde K, Houle D, Pelabon C. 2015. Complex constraints on allometry revealed by artificial selection on the wing of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:13284-9.
6. Bonaparte KM, Riffle-Yokoi C, Burley NT. 2011. Getting a head start: diet, sub-adult growth, and associative learning in a seed-eating passerine. PLoS One 6:1-8.
7. Bonduriansky R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61:838-49.
8. Burton RF. 2008. The scaling of eye size in adult birds: relationship to brain, head and body sizes. Vision Res 48:2345-51.
9. Chizinski CJ, Pope KL, Wilde GR, Strauss RE. 2010. Implications of stunting on morphology of freshwater fishes. J Fish Biol 76:564-79.
10. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2004. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58:1038-46.
11. Courty J, Loret C, Chevallier B, Moenner M, Barritault D. 1987. Biochemical comparative studies between eye-and brain-derived growth factors. Biochimie 69:511-6.
12. Cuervo JJ, Moller AP. 2001. Components of phenotypic variation in avian ornamental and non-ornamental feathers. Evol Ecol 15:53-72.
13. Darwin C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. New York: New York University Press.
14. Dominoni DM, Carmona-Wagner EO, Hofmann M, Kranstauber B, Partecke J. 2013. Individual-based measurements of light intensity provide new insights into the effects of artificial light at night on daily rhythms of urban-dwelling songbirds. J Anim Ecol 83:681-92.
15. Eberhard W, Huber B, Rodriguez R, Briceno R. 1998. One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52:415-31.
16. Fernandez-Juricic E, Poston R, De Collibus K, Morgan T, Bastain B, Martin C, Jones K, Treminio R. 2005. Microhabitat selection and singing behavior patterns of male house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) in urban parks in a heavily urbanized landscape in the Western U.S. Urban Habit 3:49-69.
17. Gavett AP, Wakeley JS. 1986. Blood constituents and their relation to diet in urban and rural house sparrows. The Condor 88:279-84.
18. Gayon J. 2000. History of the concept of allometry. Am Zool 40:748-58.
19. Giraudeau M, McGraw KJ. 2014. Physiological correlates of urbanization in a desert songbird. Integr Comp Biol 54:1-11.
20. Giraudeau M, Mousel M, Earl S, McGraw K. 2014a. Parasites in the city: degree of urbanization predicts poxvirus and coccidian infections in house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus). PloS One 9:1-8.
21. Giraudeau M, Nolan PM, Black CE, Earl SR, Hasegawa M, McGraw KJ. 2014b. Song characteristics track bill morphology along a gradient of urbanization in house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus). Frontiers Zool 11:1-8.
22. Hahs AK, Evans KL. 2015. Expanding fundamental ecological knowledge by studying urban ecosystems. Funct Ecol 29:863-7.
23. Harrison JF. 2015. Evolvability and nonevolvability of allometric slopes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:13426-7.]
24. Hasegawa M, Ligon RA, Giraudeau M, Watanabe M, McGraw KJ. 2014. Urban and colorful male house finches are less aggressive. Behav Ecol 25:641-9.
25. Herrel A, Podos J, Huber S, Hendry A. 2005. Bite performance in a population of Darwins finches: implications for the evolution of beak shape. Funct Ecol 19:43-8.
26. Huxley J. 1936. Problems of relative growth. New York: L. MacVeigh.
27. Isaksson C, Andersson S. 2007. Carotenoid diet and nestling provisioning in urban and rural great tits Parus major. J Avian Biol 38:564-72.
28. James FC. 1983. Environmental component of morphological differentiation in birds. Science 221:184-6.
29. Kemp P, Bertness MD. 1984. Snail shape and growth rates: evidence for plastic shell allometry in Littorina littorea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:811-3.
30. Kiltie RA. 2000. Scaling of visual acuity with body size. Funct Ecol 14:226-34.
31. Lazic MM, Carretero MA, Crnobrnja-Isailovic J, Kaliontzopoulou A. 2015. Effects of environmental disturbance on phenotypic variation: an integrated assessment of canalization, developmental stability, modularity, and allometry in lizard head shape. Am Nat 185:44-58.
32. Logan CJ, Palmstrom CR. 2015. Can endocranial volume be estimated accurately from external skull measurements in great-tailed grackles (Quiscalus mexicanus)? PeerJ 3:1-14.
33. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Senior AM, Zantis SP, Barna K, Cowieson AJ, Pandya S, Pavard C, Shiels M, Raubenheimer D. 2016. Dietary protein selection in a free-ranging urban population of common myna birds. Behav Ecol 27:219-27.
34. Maklakov AA, Immler S, Gonzalez-Voyer A, Ronn J, Kolm N. 2011. Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biol Lett 7:730-2.
35. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Osenberg CW, Miner BG, Vonesh JR. 2006. Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia 148:547-54.
36. Moller AP. 2010. Brain size, head size and behaviour of a passerine bird. J Evol Biol 23:625-35.
37. Moller AP, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Rudolfsen G, Mousseau TA. 2011. Chernobyl birds have smaller brains. PLoS One 6:1-7.
38. Moller AP, Erritzoe J. 2015. Brain size and urbanization in birds. Avian Res 6:1-7.
39. Pearce E, Dunbar R. 2012. Latitudinal variation in light levels drives human visual system size. Biol Lett 8:90-3.
40. Pelabon C, Firmat C, Bolstad GH, Voje KL, Houle D, Cassara J, Le Rouzic A, Hansen TF. 2014. Evolution of morphological allometry. Ann NY Acad Sci 1320:58-75.
41. Riyahi S, Hammer O, Arbabi T, Sanchez A, Roselaar CS, Aliabadian M, Stre G. 2013. Beak and skull shapes of human commensal and non-commensal house sparrows Passer domesticus. BMC Evol Biol 13:1-8.
42. Schmitz L, Motani R. 2010. Morphological differences between the eyeballs of nocturnal and diurnal amniotes revisited from optical perspectives of visual environments. Vision Res 50:936-46.
43. Senar JC, Pascual J. 1997. Keel and tersus length may provide a good predictor of avian body size. Ardea 85:269-74.
44. Shingleton AW, Estep CM, Driscoll MV, Dworkin I. 2009. Many ways to be small: different environmental regulators of size generate distinct scaling relationships in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc B 276:2625-33.
45. Siopes TD, Timmons MB, Baughman GR, Parkhurst CR. 1984. The effects of light intensity on turkey poult performance, eye morphology, and adrenal weight. Poult Sci 63:904-9.
46. Stracey CM, Wynn B, Robinson SK. 2014. Light pollution allows the Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) to feed nestlings after dark. Wilson J Ornithol 126:366-9.
47. Swallow JG, Wallace LE, Christianson SJ, Johns PM, Wilkinson GS. 2005. Genetic divergence does not predict change in ornament expression among populations of stalk-eyed flies. Mol Ecol 14:3787-800.
48. Thomas R, Kelly D, Goodship N. 2004. Eye design in birds and visual constraints on behavior. Ornitol Neotrop 15:243-50.
49. Thomas RJ, Szekely T, Cuthill IC, Harper DGC, Newson SE, Frayling TD, Wallis PD. 2002. Eye size in birds and the timing of song at dawn. Proc R Soc B 269:831-7.
50. Tobias JA, Montgomerie R, Lyon BE. 2012. The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2274-93.
51. Urist MR. 1997. Bone morphogenetic protein: the molecularization of skeletal system development. J Bone Miner Res 12:343-6.
52. Valcarcel A, Fernandez-Juricic E. 2009. Antipredator strategies of house finches: are urban habitats safe spots from predators even when humans are around? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:673-85.
53. van der Meij MA, Bout RG. 2004. Scaling of jaw muscle size and maximal bite force in finches. J Exp Biol 207:2745-53.
54. Voje KL, Hansen TF. 2013. Evolution of static allometries: adaptive change in allometric slopes of eye span in stalkeyed flies. Evolution 67:453-67.
55. Voje KL, Hansen TF, Egset CK, Bolstad GH, Pelabon C. 2014. Allometric constraints and the evolution of allometry. Evolution 68:866-85.