English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Morphological comparison of ninespined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) populations in different ecological habitats of northern Germany

Buchholtz, J. (2013). Morphological comparison of ninespined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) populations in different ecological habitats of northern Germany. Bachelor Thesis, Christian Albrechts Universität, Kiel.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
Bachelor_thesis_JB.pdf (Any fulltext), 3MB
Name:
Bachelor_thesis_JB.pdf
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Buchholtz, Julian1, Author           
Mobley, Kenyon B.1, Referee           
Brendelberger, H.2, Referee           
Affiliations:
1Department Evolutionary Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society, ou_1445634              
2External, ou_persistent22              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: -
 Abstract: Nine-spined sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) are a species of fish which are widely distributed throughout a range of different habitats. Their expression of different morphological traits and/or body shapes among populations makes them an excellent model to understand mechanisms of phenotypic variation. Currently, there are no recent studies about the morphology of northern German populations as well as how environmental conditions drive natural selection on phenotypic variation in these populations. In this study divergences in morphological traits and body shape between populations of northern German nine-spined sticklebacks were investigated. Populations inhabiting an environment with a low predation pressure of piscivorous fish showed a larger body size and a decreased spine-armory in comparison to fish inhabiting an environment with a high predation pressure of piscivorous fish. Moreover, fish from populations exposed to similar environmental conditions showed a higher similarity to each other concerning their morphology than fish, that are located near each other geographically. These results demonstrate that differences in predation pressure, likely caused by sympatric piscivorous fish species, strongly influence morphological and body shape variation between different populations. In addition, the environment seems to have a higher effect on phenotypic variation than geographical distances between populations. Nonetheless, more work is needed to get a better impression about the interaction of environmental conditions affecting phenotypic variation in nine-spined sticklebacks. A comparison of more populations, inhabiting similar environments with a balanced sex ratio of specimens could be helpful to analyze sexual divergence. Additionally, a precise analysis of differences in food availability and water chemistry could help elucidate the influences of these factors on phenotypic variation.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 20132013-09
 Publication Status: Issued
 Pages: III, 35 Bl.
 Publishing info: Kiel : Christian Albrechts Universität
 Table of Contents: ZUSAMMENFASSUNG / ABSTRACT ________________________________________________________________1
INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________________________________________3
Investigated species ______________________________________________________________________________ 3
History of the sampling area _______________________________________________________________________ 4
Goals of the study________________________________________________________________________________ 5
METHODS ____________________________________________________________________________________________7
Sampling _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7
Measurements of morphometric traits ______________________________________________________________ 9
Shape Measurements ____________________________________________________________________________ 12
RESULTS ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14
Comparison of morphological traits _______________________________________________________________ 14
Principal component analysis (PCA) _______________________________________________________________ 17
Shape Analysis _________________________________________________________________________________ 18
Cluster Analysis ________________________________________________________________________________ 20
DISCUSSION ________________________________________________________________________________________ 21
Comparison of morphological traits _______________________________________________________________ 21
Comparison of sexes ____________________________________________________________________________ 23
Conclusion ____________________________________________________________________________________ 24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ___________________________________________________________________________ 27
REFERENCES _______________________________________________________________________________________ 28
APPENDIX __________________________________________________________________________________________ 33
Linear measurement tool (source code) _____________________________________________________________ 33
DECLARATION OF CONSENT / ___________________________________________________________________ 35

List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Germany and Schleswig-Holstein, showing sampled areas ______________________ 7
Figure 2: First Landmark Setting _________________________________________________________ 9
Figure 3: Second Landmark Setting ______________________________________________________ 10
Figure 4: Third Landmark Setting _______________________________________________________ 11
Figure 5: Summary of all measured morphological traits _____________________________________ 12
Figure 6: Landmark setting for the 2D shape analysis _______________________________________ 13
Figure 7: Comparison of the mean values between populations ________________________________ 16
Figure 8: 3D Scatterplot of individual PC scores ____________________________________________ 17
Figure 9: Mean body shape of each population _____________________________________________ 18
Figure 10: Canonical variant scores of all specimens, labeled by population _____________________ 19
Figure 11: Dendrogram output of the cluster analysis on morphological traits ___________________ 20
Figure 12: Unrooted tree showing genetic distances from the microsatellite analyses ______________ 25
List of Tables
Table 1: Main characteristics of sampled areas ______________________________________________ 8
Table 2: Population means for morphological measurements _________________________________ 14
Table 3: Results of the MANCOVA _______________________________________________________ 15
Table 4: Eigenvalues of the principal component analysis related to SL _________________________ 18
Table 5: Eigenvalues of the canonical variance analysis on procrustes coordinates ________________ 19
Table 6: Contingency table of the P-values for Procrustes distances among groups _______________ 20
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: Other: Diss/12532
 Degree: Bachelor

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source

show