Cited by 23Morphological variations and asymmetryAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFish Biology and Ecology Studies

Evolution of a soft‐tissue foraging adaptation in African cichlids: Roles for novelty, convergence, and constraint

Conith, Moira R., Conith, Andrew J., Albertson, R. Craig·2019·Evolution

Abstract

Understanding the origins of biodiversity demands consideration of both extrinsic (e.g., ecological opportunity) and intrinsic (e.g., developmental constraint) factors. Here, we use a combination of phylogenetic and genetic tools to address the origin of novelty in African cichlids. In particular, we focus on an extreme hypertrophied snout that is structurally integrated with the upper jaw. We show that this bizarre trait has evolved independently in at least two distinct and ecologically successful cichlid clades. We find that snout dimensions are decoupled both phenotypically and genetically, which has enabled it to evolve independently in multiple directions. Further, patterns of variation among species and within a genetic mapping pedigree suggest that relative to snout length, depth is under greater genetic and/or developmental constraint. Models of evolution suggest that snout shape is under selection for feeding behavior, with snout depth being important for algae scraping and snout length for sand sifting. Indeed, the deep snout of some algivores is achieved via an expansion of the intermaxillary ligament, which is important for jaw stability and may increase feeding performance. Overall, our data imply that the evolution of exaggerated snout depth required overcoming a genetic/developmental constraint, which led to expanded ecological opportunity via foraging adaptation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/evo.13824

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conith, M. R., Conith, A. J., & Albertson, R. C.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Albertson, R. Craig
Venue
Evolution
Published
2019-09-02
Volume
73
Issue
10
Pages
2072-2084
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
OpenAlex
W2967479895
Cited by
23
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IOS‐1054909, DEB‐1501385)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Fish Biology and Ecology Studies
Keywords
African cichlids, snout length, developmental constraints, convergent evolution, ecological opportunity, algivory, feeding behavior, gene mapping
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Evolution, Feeding Behavior, Nose, Phylogeny, Cichlids

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review