Back

Bite force transmission and mandible shape in grasshoppers, crickets, and allies is largely dependent on phylogeny, not diet

Edel, C.; Ruehr, P. T.; Frenzel, M.; van de Kamp, T.; Tomas, F.; Hammel, J.; Wilde, F.; Blanke, A.

2023-03-29 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2023.03.28.534586 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Although organ systems evolve in response to many intrinsic and extrinsic factors, frequently one factor has a dominating influence. For example, mouthpart shape and mechanics are thought to correlate strongly with aspects of the diet. Within insects, this paradigm of a shape-diet connection is advocated for decades but the relationship has so far never been quantified and is mostly based on qualitative observations. Orthoptera (grasshoppers, crickets, and allies) are a prominent case, for which mandible shape and dietary preference are thought to correlate strongly and even lead to predictions of feeding preferences. Here, we analysed mandible shape, biting efficiency, and their potential correlation with dietary categories in a phylogenetic framework for a broad sampling of several hundred extant Orthoptera covering nearly all families. The mandibular mechanical advantage was used as a descriptor of gnathal edge shape and bite force transmission efficiency. We aimed to understand how mandible shape is linked to biting efficiency and diet, and how these traits are influenced by phylogeny and allometry. The investigation reveals that feeding ecology is not the unequivocal predictor of mandible shape that it was assumed to be. There is a strong phylogenetic signal suggesting that phylogenetic history does have a much more prevalent influence on gnathal edge shape and distal mechanical advantage, than, e.g., feeding guilds or the efficiency of the force transmission to the food. Being ancestrally phytophagous, Orthoptera evolved in an environment with abundant food sources so that selective pressures leading to more specialized mouthpart shapes and force transmission efficiencies were low.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
2
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.0%
3
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
4
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.1%
5
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.1%
6
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
7
Evolutionary Ecology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
8
Functional Ecology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
9
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
10
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
11
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 28%
3.5%
12
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.5%
13
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
14
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.5%
15
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
2.0%
17
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
18
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
20
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
21
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
22
Evolutionary Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
23
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.9%
24
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
26
Animal Behaviour
65 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
27
Evolution & Development
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
28
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.7%
29
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
30
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.7%