Movement patterns in leiopelmatid frogs: Insights into the locomotor repertoire of basal anurans

Reilly, Steve; Essner, Richard L.; Wren, Sally; Easton, Luke J.; Bishop, Phillip J.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.001

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on Ascaphus (and other leiopelmatids; Essner et al, ) early frogs likely had the ability to launch but lacked the ability to control landings and crash‐landed on their bellies. Repositioning the limbs may be of less importance to basal anurans because they rarely jump in nature and it is even less common for them to immediately jump again (Reilly et al, ). Our data show that Ascaphus actively holds its hindlimbs extended posterodorsally until well after landing forces have subsided and then the slow process of hindlimb recovery and foot placement begins, whereas the other three species begin hindlimb recovery during the aerial phase.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional evolution of jumping in frogs: Interspecific differences in take‐off and landing

Reilly

Montuelle

Schmidt

et al. 2015

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ancestral frogs underwent anatomical shifts including elongation of the hindlimbs and pelvis and reduction of the tail and vertebral column that heralded the transition to jumping as a primary mode of locomotion. Jumping has been hypothesized to have evolved in a step-wise fashion with basal frogs taking-off with synchronous hindlimb extension and crash-landing on their bodies, and then their limbs move forward. Subsequently, frogs began to recycle the forelimbs forward earlier in the jump to control landing. Frogs with forelimb landing radiated into many forms, locomotor modes, habitats, and niches with controlled landing thought to improve escape behavior. While the biology of take-off behavior has seen considerable study, interspecific comparisons of take-off and landing behavior are limited. In order to understand the evolution of jumping and controlled landing in frogs, data are needed on the movements of the limbs and body across an array of taxa. Here, we present the first description and comparison of kinematics of the hindlimbs, forelimbs and body during take-off and landing in relation to ground reaction forces in four frog species spanning the frog phylogeny. The goal of this study is to understand what interspecific differences reveal about the evolution of take-off and controlled landing in frogs. We provide the first comparative description of the entire process of jumping in frogs. Statistical comparisons identify both homologous behaviors and significant differences among species that are used to map patterns of trait evolution and generate hypotheses regarding the functional evolution of take-off and landing in frogs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional evolution of jumping in frogs: Interspecific differences in take‐off and landing

Reilly

Montuelle

Schmidt

et al. 2015

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite phylogenetic constraints on their appendicular skeleton as an adaptation to saltatory locomotion [33], substantially different body shape patterns have evolved independently across several clades [34]. Frogs and toads have adapted to a wide array of extreme environments through a combination of behavioural, physiological, and morphological mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic conservatism in skulls and evolutionary lability in limbs – morphological evolution across an ancient frog radiation is shaped by diet, locomotion and burrowing

Vidal‐García

Keogh

2017

BMC Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundQuantifying morphological diversity across taxa can provide valuable insight into evolutionary processes, yet its complexities can make it difficult to identify appropriate units for evaluation. One of the challenges in this field is identifying the processes that drive morphological evolution, especially when accounting for shape diversification across multiple structures. Differential levels of co-varying phenotypic diversification can conceal selective pressures on traits due to morphological integration or modular shape evolution of different structures, where morphological evolution of different modules is explained either by co-variation between them or by independent evolution, respectively.MethodsHere we used a 3D geometric morphometric approach with x-ray micro CT scan data of the skull and bones of forelimbs and hindlimbs of representative species from all 21 genera of the ancient Australo-Papuan myobatrachid frogs and analysed their shape both as a set of distinct modules and as a multi-modular integrative structure. We then tested three main questions: (i) are evolutionary patterns and the amount and direction of morphological changes similar in different structures and subfamilies?, (ii) do skulls and limbs show different levels of integration?, and (iii) is morphological diversity of skulls and limbs shaped by diet, locomotion, burrowing behavior, and ecology?.ResultsOur results in both skulls and limbs support a complex evolutionary pattern typical of an adaptive radiation with an early burst of phenotypic variation followed by slower rates of morphological change. Skull shape diversity was phylogenetically conserved and correlated with diet whereas limb shape was more labile and associated with diet, locomotion, and burrowing behaviour. Morphological changes between different limb bones were highly correlated, depicting high morphological integration. In contrast, overall limb and skull shape displayed semi-independence in morphological evolution, indicating modularity.ConclusionsOur results illustrate how morphological diversification in animal clades can follow complex processes, entailing selective pressures from the environment as well as multiple trait covariance with varying degrees of independence across different structures. We suggest that accurately quantifying shape diversity across multiple structures is crucial in order to understand complex evolutionary processes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0993-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Thus, one would expect the earliest anurans to escape by jumping significant distances. However, a recent study has shown that the basal‐most living anurans (Leiopelmatidae; Reilly et al, ) 1) prefer to walk rather than jump, 2) riparian species jump on land more frequently into the water, and 3) the terrestrial species were rarely ( Leiopelma pakeka ) or never ( L . archeyi ) observed to jump.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the lateral-bender pelvis is both basal and general to anurans that are walkers, hoppers, jumpers, burrowers, and climbers (Reilly and Jorgensen, 2011). The basal-most anurans (leiopelmatids) which rarely jump in nature (Reilly et al, 2015a) are characterized by extreme body extension prior to the belly-flop landing (Reilly et al, 2016). In contrast, toads exemplify tight coordination of pelvic movements with controlled handlanding in the hopping and bounding locomotion that has allowed them to become one of the most cosmopolitan assemblages of anurans (Reilly et al, 2015b).…”

Section: Aerial Rotation and Controlled Landingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pelvic function in anuran jumping: Interspecific differences in the kinematics and motor control of the iliosacral articulation during take‐off and landing

Reilly

Montuelle

Schmidt

et al. 2016

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the anuran pelvis is thought to be adapted for jumping, the function of the iliosacral joint has seen little direct study. Previous work has contrasted the basal "lateral-bender" pelvis from the "rod-like" pelvis of crown taxa hypothesized to function as a sagittal hinge to align the trunk with take-off forces. We compared iliosacral movements and pelvic motor patterns during jumping in the two pelvic types. Pelvic muscle activity patterns, iliosacral anteroposterior (AP) movements and sagittal bending of the pelvis during the take-off and landing phases were quantified in lateral bender taxa Ascaphus (Leiopelmatidae) and Rhinella (Bufonidae) and the rod-like Lithobates (Ranidae). All three species exhibit sagittal extension during take-off, therefore, both pelvic types employ a sagittal hinge. However, trunk elevation occurs significantly earlier in the anuran rod-like pelvis. Motor patterns confirm that the piriformis muscles depress the urostyle while the longissimus dorsi muscles elevate the trunk during take-off. However, the coccygeoiliacus muscles also produce anterior translation of the sacrum on the ilia. A new model illustrates how AP translation facilitates trunk extension in the lateral-bender anurans that have long been thought to have limited sagittal bending. During landing, AP translation patterns are similar because impact forces slide the sacrum from its posterior to anterior limits. Sagittal flexion during landing differs among the three taxa depending on the way the species land. AP translation during landing may dampen impact forces especially in Rhinella in which pelvic function is tuned to forelimb-landing dynamics. The flexibility of the lateral-bender pelvis to function in sagittal bending and AP translation helps to explain the retention of this basal configuration in many anurans. The novel function of the rod-like pelvis may be to increase the rate of trunk elevation relative to faster rates of energy release from the hindlimbs enabling them to jump farther. J. Morphol. 277:1539-1558, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Movement patterns in leiopelmatid frogs: Insights into the locomotor repertoire of basal anurans

Cited by 23 publications

References 43 publications

Functional evolution of jumping in frogs: Interspecific differences in take‐off and landing

Functional evolution of jumping in frogs: Interspecific differences in take‐off and landing

Phylogenetic conservatism in skulls and evolutionary lability in limbs – morphological evolution across an ancient frog radiation is shaped by diet, locomotion and burrowing

Pelvic function in anuran jumping: Interspecific differences in the kinematics and motor control of the iliosacral articulation during take‐off and landing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About