Using Functional Morphology to Examine the Ecology and Evolution of Specialization

Abstract

Researchers strive to understand what makes species different, and what allows them to survive in the time and space that they do. Many models have been advanced which encompass an array of ecological, evolutionary, mathematical, and logical principles. The goal has been to develop ecological theories that can, among other things, make specific and robust predictions about how and where organisms should live and what organisms should utilize. The role of functional morphology is often an under-appreciated parameter of these models. A more complete understanding of how anatomical features work to allow the organism to accomplish certain tasks has allowed us to revisit some of these ideas with a new perspective. We illustrate our view of this role for functional morphology in ecology by considering the issue of specialization: we attempt to align several definitions of specialization based upon shared ecological and evolutionary principles, and we summarize theoretical predictions regarding why an organism might specialize. Kinematic studies of prey capture in several types of fishes are explored with regard to the potential ecological and evolutionary consequences of specialization, most notably in the area of trade-offs. We suggest that a functional morphological perspective can increase our understanding of the ecological concepts of specialization and it consequences. The kinds of data that functional morphologists collect can help us to quantify organismal performance associated with specialization and the union of functional morphology with ecology can help us to better understand not just how but why organisms interact in the manner that they do.

Comparative analysis of methods for determining bite force in the spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias

“…Pharyngeal bite force within the labrids was also positively correlated with the degree of durophagous prey in the diet and negatively correlated with dietary diversity, as often is the case with functional specialists such as the durophagous L. maximus (Wainwright, '88;Clifton and Motta, '98;Ferry-Graham et al, 2002). An ontogenetic increase in bite force generation in S. acanthias associated with allometric growth of the quadratomandibularis may be expected because at 60 cm (TL) a Patagonian population of S. acanthias undergoes an ontogenetic dietary shift from fish, squid, and ctenophores to primarily fish (Alonso et al, 2002).…”

Geometric Morphometric Investigation of Molar Shape Diversity in Modern Lemurs and Lorises

“…Since dietary specialization can be defined at the evolutionary, functional, and behavioral level (Ferry-Graham et al, 2002), various approaches will yield different but complimentary results. For example, information concerning an individual's dietary behavior gained through microwear analysis provides a valuable amount of information regarding the environment and food items available to that individual during a discreet slice of time.…”

“…For example, information concerning an individual's dietary behavior gained through microwear analysis provides a valuable amount of information regarding the environment and food items available to that individual during a discreet slice of time. However, that individual may exhibit a ''specialist'' or ''generalist'' microwear pattern due to ecological constraints, competitive populations, or food availability at a specific point in time, and may not fully reflect its evolutionary background and the adaptive pattern of an ancestral population (Ferry-Graham et al, 2002). Thus, data concerning an individual's lifetime paired with data that reflect upon evolutionary ancestry and adaptation provide a broad picture of ecological change, population behavioral patterns, and morphological adaptation that has been canalized through genetic processes (Polly, 2006).…”

No trade-off between biting and suction feeding performance in clariid catfishes

“…Turingan and Wainwright, 1993;Friel and Wainwright, 1999;Albertson et al, 2003) as opposed to long, highly protrusible jaws of some specialized suction feeders (e.g. Motta, 1984;Westneat, 1989;Ferry-Graham et al, 2002) are a well-studied example of this. Given the diversity in food characteristics, it is therefore not surprising that the mode of feeding (suction or biting) is usually reflected in the fishes' diet, which in turn can often be predicted fairly well from morphology (Sibbing and Nagelkerke, 2001).…”