Complex body size trends in the evolution of sloths (Xenarthra: Pilosa)

BMC Evolutionary Biology

John A Finarelli¹  Anjali Goswami²  Sara Raj Pant³ 

[1] UCD Earth Institute, University of College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK;Department of Genetics, Evolution & Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK

关键词: Mammalia;    Fossils;    Evolutionary rates;    Ancestral character state reconstruction;   

Others  :  1117957
DOI  :  10.1186/s12862-014-0184-1

 received in 2014-04-08, accepted in 2014-08-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Extant sloths present an evolutionary conundrum in that the two living genera are superficially similar (small-bodied, folivorous, arboreal) but diverged from one another approximately 30 million years ago and are phylogenetically separated by a radiation of medium to massive, mainly ground-dwelling, taxa. Indeed, the species in the two living genera are among the smallest, and perhaps most unusual, of the 50+ known sloth species, and must have independently and convergently evolved small size and arboreality. In order to accurately reconstruct sloth evolution, it is critical to incorporate their extinct diversity in analyses. Here, we used a dataset of 57 species of living and fossil sloths to examine changes in body mass mean and variance through their evolution, employing a general time-variable model that allows for analysis of evolutionary trends in continuous characters within clades lacking fully-resolved phylogenies, such as sloths.

Results

Our analyses supported eight models, all of which partition sloths into multiple subgroups, suggesting distinct modes of body size evolution among the major sloth lineages. Model-averaged parameter values supported trended walks in most clades, with estimated rates of body mass change ranging as high as 126 kg/million years for the giant ground sloth clades Megatheriidae and Nothrotheriidae. Inclusion of living sloth species in the analyses weakened reconstructed rates for their respective groups, with estimated rates for Megalonychidae (large to giant ground sloths and the extant two-toed sloth) were four times higher when the extant genus Choloepus was excluded.

Conclusions

Analyses based on extant taxa alone have the potential to oversimplify or misidentify macroevolutionary patterns. This study demonstrates the impact that integration of data from the fossil record can have on reconstructions of character evolution and establishes that body size evolution in sloths was complex, but dominated by trended walks towards the enormous sizes exhibited in some recently extinct forms.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Raj Pant et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gaudin TJ: Phylogenetic relationships among sloths (Mammalia, Xenarthra, Tardigrada): the craniodental evidence. Zool J Linn Soc 2004, 140(2):255-305.
• [2]McKenna MC, Bell SK: Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. University Press, Columbia; 1997.
• [3]Croft DA: Archaeohyracidae (Mammalia: Notoungulata) from the Tinguiririca Fauna, central Chile, and the evolution and paleoecology of South American mammalian herbivores. PhD thesis. University of Chicago, Chicago; 2000.
• [4]Steadman DW, Martin PS, MacPhee RDE, Jull AJT, McDonald HG, Woods CA, Iturralde-Vinent M, Hodgins GWL: Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths on continents and islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2005, 102(33):11763-11768.
• [5]Pujos F, De Iuliis G, Argot C, Werdelin L: A peculiar climbing Megalonychidae from the Pleistocene of Peru and its implication for sloth history. Zool J Linn Soc 2007, 149(2):179-235.
• [6]Nyakatura JA: The convergent evolution of suspensory posture and locomotion in tree sloths. J Mamm Evol 2012, 19(3):225-234.
• [7]Slater GJ, Harmon LJ, Alfaro ME: Integrating fossils with molecular phylogenies improves inference of trait evolution. Evolution 2012, 66(12):3931-3944.
• [8]Finarelli JA, Goswami A: Potential pitfalls of reconstructing deep time evolutionary history with only extant data, a case study using the Canidae (Mammalia, Carnivora). Evolution 2013, 67(12):3678-3685.
• [9]Finarelli JA, Flynn JJ: Ancestral state reconstruction of body size in the Caniformia (Carnivora, Mammalia): the effects of incorporating data from the fossil record. Syst Biol 2006, 55(2):301-313.
• [10]Pujos F, Gaudin TJ, De Iuliis G, Cartelle C: Recent advances on variability, morpho-functional adaptations, dental terminology, and evolution of sloths. J Mamm Evol 2012, 19(3):159-169.
• [11]Vizcaíno SF, Bargo MS, Cassini GH: Dental occlusal surface area in relation to body mass, food habits and other biological features in fossil Xenarthrans. Ameghiniana 2006, 43(1):11-26.
• [12]McNab BK: Energetics, population biology, and distribution of Xenarthrans, living and extinct. In The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths, and vermilinguas. Edited by Montgomery GG. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C; 1985:219-232.
• [13]Damuth J: Interspecific allometry of population density in mammals and other animals: the independence of body mass and population energy- use. Biol J Linn Soc 1987, 31(3):193-246.
• [14]Isaac NJB, Jones KE, Gittleman JL, Purvis A: Correlates of species richness in mammals: body size, life history, and ecology. Am Nat 2005, 165(5):600-607.
• [15]Bielby J, Mace GM, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Cardillo M, Gittleman JL, Jones KE, Orme CDL, Purvis A: The fast-slow continuum in mammalian life history: an empirical reevaluation. Am Nat 2007, 169(6):748-757.
• [16]Fariña RA: Trophic relationships among Lujanian mammals. Evol Theor Rev 1996, 11(2):125-134.
• [17]Bargo MS, Vizcaíno SF, Archuby FM, Blanco RE: Limb bone proportions, strength and digging in some Lujanian (Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene) mylodontid ground sloths (Mammalia, Xenarthra). J Vert Paleo 2000, 20(3):601-610.
• [18]McDonald HG: Paleoecology of extinct Xenarthrans and the Great American biotic interchange. Bull Fla Mus Nat Hist 2005, 45(4):313-333.
• [19]Oakley TH, Cunningham CW: Independent contrasts succeed where ancestor reconstruction fails in a known bacteriophage phylogeny. Evolution 2000, 54(2):397-405.
• [20]Slater GJ: Phylogenetic evidence for a shift in the mode of mammalian body size evolution at the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2013, 4(8):734-744.
• [21]Albert JS, Johnson DM, Knouft JH: Fossils provide better estimates of ancestral body size than do extant taxa in fishes. Acta Zoolog 2009, 90(Suppl. 1):357-384.
• [22]Hunt G: Fitting and comparing models of phyletic evolution: random walks and beyond. Paleobiology 2006, 32(4):578-601.
• [23]Hunt G: The relative importance of directional change, random walks, and stasis in the evolution of fossil lineages. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2007, 104(47):18404-18408.
• [24]Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L: Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 1989, 76(2):297-307.
• [25]Akaike H: Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Edited by Petrov BN, Csaki F. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest; 1973:267-281.
• [26]Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York; 2002.
• [27]Venditti C, Meade A, Pagel M: Multiple routes to mammalian diversity. Nature 2011, 479(7373):393-396.
• [28]Garland T, Harvey PH, Ives AR: Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phyogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 1992, 41:18-32.
• [29]Cunningham CW: Some limitations of ancestral character-state reconstruction when testing evolutionary hypotheses. Syst Biol 1999, 48(3):665-674.
• [30]Liow LH, Fortelius M, Bingham E, Lintulaakso K, Mannila H, Flynn L, Stenseth NC: Higher origination and extinction rates in larger mammals. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2008, 105(16):6097-6102.
• [31]Liow LH, Quental TB, Marshall CR: When can decreasing diversification rates be detected with molecular phylogenies and the fossil record? Syst Biol 2010, 59(6):646-659.
• [32]Liow LH, Finarelli JA: A dynamic global equilibrium in carnivoran diversification over 20 million years.Pro Biol Sci 2014, 281(1778):20132312.
• [33]Finarelli JA, Badgley C: Diversity dynamics of Miocene mammals in relation to the history of tectonism and climate. Pro Biol Sci 2010, 277(1694):2721-2726.
• [34]Finarelli JA, Flynn JJ: Brain size evolution and sociality in Carnivora. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009, 106(23):9345-9349.
• [35]Wagner PJ: Contrasting the underlying patterns of active trends in morphologic evolution. Evolution 1996, 50(3):990-1007.
• [36]Wang SC: Accounting for unequal variances in evolutionary trend mechanisms. Paleobiology 2005, 31(2):191-198.
• [37]Alroy J: Cope's rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science 1998, 280(5364):731-734.
• [38]Jablonski D: Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's rule. Nature 1997, 385(6613):250-252.
• [39]Alroy J: Understanding the dynamics of trends within evolving lineages. Paleobiology 2000, 26(3):319-329.
• [40]Gould SJ: Trends as changes in variance - a new slant on progress and directionality in evolution. J Paleontol 1988, 62(3):319-329.
• [41]Stanley SM: An explanation for Cope's rule. Evolution 1973, 27(1):1-26.
• [42]McShea DW: Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution 1994, 48(6):1747-1763.
• [43]Solow AR, Wang SC: Some problems with assessing Cope's Rule. Evolution 2008, 62(8):2092-2096.
• [44]Roopnarine PD: The description and classification of evolutionary mode: a computational approach. Paleobiology 2001, 27:446-465.
• [45]Felsenstein J: Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 1985, 125(1):1-15.
• [46]McShea DW, Brandon RN: Biology's First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 2010.
• [47]Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Soc Meth Res 2004, 33(2):261-304.
• [48]Edwards AWF: Likelihood: Expanded Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore; 1992.
• [49]Royall RM: Statistical evidence: a likelihood paradigm. Chapman and Hall, New York; 1997.