The utility of captive animals in actualistic research: A geometric morphometric exploration of the tooth row of Alligator mississippiensis suggesting ecophenotypic influences and functional constraints.
Captive broad snouted crocodylians are generally thought to have wider, shorter rostra than their wild counterparts. Interpreted to reflect morphological change in response to the conditions of captivity, this qualitative pattern could affect the utility of these animals in a variety of fields of research. However, due to relative ease of access and availability of life history data, captive animals are often utilized in actualistic research. Thus, this issue should be addressed in more detail. Here we explore snout shape variation between captive and wild members of Alligator mississippiensis using two-dimensional (2D) morphometric techniques. Several landmark schemesare used to assess the utility of different aspects of morphology in distinguishing the groups. While statistical analyses consistently differentiated between the groups, the area of morphospace occupied by wild members of A. mississippiensis generally overlapped with the larger area encompassing the captive specimens. This indicates that the captive condition is not as uniform as previously thought and instead encompasses a large spectrum of morphologies, ranging from the stereotypical broad, shortened snouts to outlines that are indistinguishable from the wild morphotype. These results align well with the interpretation that this change reflects an extreme example of ecophenotypy, since ranched, farmed, or zoo organisms are held in an array of enclosures, ranging from indoor, climate controlled pens to outdoor, more natural areas. This variation in environments should be reflected in different reactions to the animals' surroundings, resulting in a broad spectrum of morphotypes. While wild specimens are still preferred, especially for fine scale analyses, these results indicate that not all captive members of A. mississippiensis exhibit the extreme morphological alterations often cited in the literature. Weighing the conditions in which the animals are held and exploring the possibility of morphological differences against the benefits of using captive specimens should be part of any actualistic study. J. Morphol. 277:866-878, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996.
Stephanie K
SK
Drumheller
Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, 11794.
Eric W
EW
Wilberg
Department of Biological Sciences, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, Illinois, 60655.|Integrative Research Center, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60605.
Rudyard W
RW
Sadleir
D000489:Alligators and Crocodiles / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D000818:Animals; D060146:Ecotype; D014070:Tooth / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000502:physiology
Crocodylia; captivity; ecophenotypy; intraspecific variation; rostral morphology