Search

Aim: Ecological niche‐based models (ENM) frequently rely on bioclimatic variables (BioV) to reconstruct biogeographic scenarios for species evolution, ignoring mechanistic relations. We tested if climatic predictors relevant to species hydric and thermal physiology better proximate distribution patterns and support location of Pleistocene refugia derived from phylogeographic studies. Location: The Western Palaearctic. Taxon: Vipera berus and Zootoca vivipara, two cold‐adapted species. Methods: We used two sets of variables, that is physiologically meaningful climatic variables (PMV) and BioV, in a multi‐algorithm ENM approach, to compare their ability to predict current and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) species ranges. We estimated current and LGM permafrost extent to address spatially the cold hardiness dissimilarity between both species. Results: PMV explained more accurately the current distribution of these two cold‐adapted species and identified the importance of summer temperature and solar radiation that constrain activity in cold habitats. PMV also provide a better insight than BioV predictors on LGM distribution. By including notably, the permafrost extent, PMV‐based models gave parsimonious putative arrangement and validity of refugia for each clade and subclade in accordance with phylogeographic data. Northern refugia were also identified from 48 to 52° N for V. berus and from 50 to 54° N for Z. vivipara. Main Conclusions: Our hybrid approach based on PMV generated more realistic predictions for both current (biogeographical validation) and past distributions (phylogeographic validation). By combining constraints during the activity period (summer climatic niche) and those inherent to the wintering period (freeze tolerance), we managed to identify glacial refuges in agreement with phylogeographic hypotheses concerning post‐glacial routes and colonization scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research is the property of Hindawi Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Snakes frequently exhibit ontogenetic and sexual variation in head dimensions, as well as the occurrence of distinct colour morphotypes which might be fitness-related. In this study, we used linear biometry and geometric morphometrics to investigate intraspecific morphological variation related to allometry and sexual dimorphism in Vipera seoanei , a species that exhibits five colour morphotypes, potentially subjected to distinct ecological pressures. We measured body size (SVL), tail length and head dimensions in 391 specimens, and examined variation in biometric traits with respect to allometry, sex and colour morph. In addition, we analysed head shape variation by recording the position of 29 landmarks in 123 specimens and establishing a low-error protocol for implementing geometric morphometrics to European vipers. All head dimensions exhibited significant allometry, while sexual differences occurred for SVL, relative tail length and snout height. After considering size effects, we found significant differences in body proportions between the sexes and across colour morphs, which suggests an important influence of lowland and montane habitats in shaping morphological variation. By contrast, head shape did not exhibit significant variation across sexes or colour morphs. Instead it was mainly associated to allometric variation, where the supraocular and the rear regions of the head were the areas that varied the most throughout growth and across individuals. Overall, this study provides a thorough description of morphological variability in Vipera seoanei and highlights the relevance of combining different tools (i.e. linear and geometric morphometrics) and analyses to evaluate the relative contribution of different factors in shaping intraspecific variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]