Differentiating Microtus Xanthognathus and Microtus Pennsylvanicus Lower First Molars Using Discriminant Analysis of Landmark Data

Wallace, Steven C.

doi:10.1644/05-mamm-a-209r3.1

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as indicated earlier, the main challenge to using Microtus for palaeoecological research has been the difficulty in confidently identifying Quaternary Microtus fossils to the species level. Recent investigations (Wallace, ; McGuire, ) developed methods for identifying Microtus species in the fossil record. We utilized these methods to reconstruct the geographical distributions of the fossil specimens of the five Microtus species living in California today, examine how those ranges have changed since the LGM, and compare those distributions with LGM distribution hypotheses generated using SDMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the palaeontological record of Microtus to test species distribution models and reveal responses to climate change

McGuire

Davis

2013

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We used newly identified fossil specimens to reconstruct the Quaternary distributions of five Microtus species (Rodentia: Arvicolinae) from the Pacific coast of the United States. We used these distributions to test the hypothesis that when projected onto past, alternative climate surfaces, species distribution models (SDMs) created using only climate variables are concordant with the empirical data of fossil Microtus species occurrences.Location Specimens from 11 fossil localities in California, Oregon and Nevada were identified and evaluated.Methods Geometric morphometrics and discriminant analyses were used to identify fossil Microtus specimens. Using a maximum-entropy modelling approach, the best model for all five species was selected using the Akaike information criterion. Nineteen bioclimate variables were used to create SDMs for the five Microtus species using both Community Climate System Model (CCSM) and Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC) models. ResultsWe confidently identified 144 Microtus fossils, including the first fossil specimens of Microtus oregoni and Microtus townsendii. SDMs reconstructed approximately half the extralimital fossil occurrences (i.e. those found outside the present-day range). Those species with extralimital occurrences not reconstructed have niche models primarily influenced by precipitation variables. The two species whose extralimitals were well predicted occupy indistinguishable climatic niches.Main conclusions The ranges of Pacific coast Microtus species have undergone substantial regional contractions since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 21 ka). Inconsistencies between LGM SDMs and Quaternary fossil ranges indicate potential problems with LGM precipitation reconstructions, although interspecific interactions are also likely to contribute to these differences. Overall, the study highlights the need for further, detailed, species-level palaeodistributions to put recent observations in a broader temporal context and examine the effectiveness of SDMs coupled with climate models for predicting range dynamics under scenarios of climate change.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the palaeontological record of Microtus to test species distribution models and reveal responses to climate change

McGuire

Davis

2013

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Buck and Strand Viðarsdóttir, 2004;Bignon et al, 2005;Larson et al, 2007;Escudé et al, 2008;Elewa, 2010). Shape coordinates from these analyses can be used to successfully predict the group affiliation of unknowns (Strand Viðarsdóttir et al, 2002;Berge and Penin, 2004;Wallace, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true?

Kovarovic

Aiello

Cardini

et al. 2011

Journal of Archaeological Science

192

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is often claimed that a multivariate morphological approach is applicable to the differentiation of closely related species of micromammals in the fossil record (Chaline et al 1989;Smirnov et al 1997;Leroy et al 2004;Polly & Head 2004;Tobin 2004;Wallace 2006;McGuire 2009). However, the taxonomic inferences from multivariate morphological analyses of fossil data have never been tested using any independent technique for taxonomic identification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating sibling species in the Quaternary fossil record: a comparison of morphological and molecular methods to identifyMicrotus arvalisandM. rossiaemeridionalis(Arvicolinae, Rodenia)

Маркова

Beeren

Kolfschoten

et al. 2012

Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differentiating Microtus Xanthognathus and Microtus Pennsylvanicus Lower First Molars Using Discriminant Analysis of Landmark Data

Cited by 20 publications

References 17 publications

Using the palaeontological record of Microtus to test species distribution models and reveal responses to climate change

Using the palaeontological record of Microtus to test species distribution models and reveal responses to climate change

Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true?

Differentiating sibling species in the Quaternary fossil record: a comparison of morphological and molecular methods to identifyMicrotus arvalisandM. rossiaemeridionalis(Arvicolinae, Rodenia)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About