Abstract
We used horn outlines with elliptic Fourier analysis to quantify horn shape as well as horn outline areas to quantify horn size in 26 Alpine chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) skulls of known sex from Serbia. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of horn curvature that characterizes each sex and devise a methodology for using horn shape to determine sex. We observed a grouping pattern that exactly corresponded to each sex by analyzing Fourier transformed and normalized outline data with holding sexes unknown by exploratory cluster and discriminant analyses. Curvature was the most important determinant of chamois horn shape, and females were found to have less curved horns than males. Horn size was also a significant factor contributing to sexual dimorphism, whereas allometric scaling was similar in both sexes. We argue that horn growth is characterized by elongation of the horn axis in females and increasing curvature in males, and that these processes are constrained to later years of individual’s life when the overall horn size changes very little. Our conclusions fit well with published data on chamois social structure and behavior suggesting that selective pressure acting on horn shape changed with increasing levels of sexual size dimorphism.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely wish to thank Andrea Cardini, Vida Jojić, Carmelo Fruciano and Carlos Fabian Morantes Ariza for providing us constructive insight into many methodological perplexities and Marco Festa–Bianchet and Luca Corlati for shedding light on complexities of chamois biology. We are also grateful to Milan Malinić and Aleksandar Nikolić for providing us with chamois skull samples. This study was supported by Ministry of Agriculture, Trade, Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Serbia (Grant. No. 401-00-02846/2012-10).
References
Adams, D.C., F.J. Rohlf and D.E. Slice. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the ‘revolution’. It. J. Zool. 71: 51–56.10.1080/11250000409356545Search in Google Scholar
Bassano, B., A. Perrone and A. Von Hardenberg. 2003. Body weight and horn development in Alpine chamois, Rupicapra rupicapra (Bovidae, Caprinae). Mammalia 67: 65–74.10.1515/mamm.2003.67.1.65Search in Google Scholar
Bertolino, S. 2003. Herd defensive behaviour of chamois Rupicapra rupicapra in response to predation on the young by a golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos. Z. Jagdwiss. 49: 233–236.10.1007/BF02189741Search in Google Scholar
Bonhomme, V., S. Picq, J. Claude, D. Dkin, C. Gaucherel, R. Kriebel, N. Martinez, M. Reginato, N. Telmon and A. Wishkerman. 2013. Momocs: shape analysis of outilines. R package version 0.2–24. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Momocs.Search in Google Scholar
Bookstein, F.L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 435.Search in Google Scholar
Bubenik, A.B., F.L. Raymond and P. Meile. 1977. Morphometry of the horns of chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra): a preliminary study. In: XIII International Congress of Game Biologists. Wildlife Society, Atlanta, GA. pp. 351–364.Search in Google Scholar
Cardini, A. and D.E. Slice. 2004. Mandibular shape in the genus Marmota (Rodentia, Sciuridae): a preliminary analysis using outlines. It. J. Zool. 71: 17–25.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, F., V. Carey, W. Qiu, R.H. Zamar, R. Lazarus and X. Wang. 2010. Clues: an R package for nonparametric clustering based on local shrinking. J. Stat. Soft. 33: 1–16.10.18637/jss.v033.i04Search in Google Scholar
Chirichella, R. 2011. Ecological factors affecting investment in body mass, and horns in the Alpine chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) Ph. D. thesis. Universita degli studi di Sassari, Italy. pp. 135.Search in Google Scholar
Claude, J. 2008. Morphometrics with R. Springer, New York, USA. pp 330.Search in Google Scholar
Corlati, L., S. Béthaz, A. Von Hardenberg, B. Bassano, R. Palme and S. Lovari. 2012. Hormones, parasites and male mating tactics in Alpine chamois: identifying the mechanisms of life history trade-offs. Anim. Behav. 30: 1–10.Search in Google Scholar
Couturier, M.A.J. 1938. Le Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra (L.). B. Arthaud, Grenoble, France. pp. 857.Search in Google Scholar
Daegling, D.J. and W.L. Jungers. 2000. Elliptical Fourier analysis of symphyseal shape in great ape mandibles. J. Hum. Evol. 39: 107–122.10.1006/jhev.2000.0402Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Dryden, I.L. and K.V. Mardia. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Wiley, Chichester, UK. pp. 376.Search in Google Scholar
Ferson, S., F.J. Rohlf and R.K. Koehn. 1985. Measuring shape variation of two dimensional outlines. Syst. Biol. 34: 59–68.10.1093/sysbio/34.1.59Search in Google Scholar
García-González, R. and I. Barandalla. 2002. Sexual dimorphism of Pyrenean chamois (Rupicapra p. pyrenaica) based on skull morphometry. Pirineos 157: 25–38.10.3989/pirineos.2002.v157.58Search in Google Scholar
Garel, M., A. Loison, J.M. Jullien, D. Dubray, D. Maillard and J.M. Gaillard. 2009. Sex–specific growth in alpine chamois. J. Mammal. 90: 954–960.10.1644/08-MAMM-A-287.1Search in Google Scholar
Geist, V. 1966. The evolution of horn-like organs. Behaviour 27: 175–214.10.1163/156853966X00155Search in Google Scholar
Hrabě, V. and P. Koubek. 1983. Horns of the chamois, Rupicapra rupicapra rupicapra, from the Jeseníky Mountains (Czechoslovakia). Folia Zool. 32: 23–31.Search in Google Scholar
Ingold, P. and H. Marbacher. 1991. Dominance relationships and competition for resources among chamois Rupicapra rupicapra rupicapra in female social groups. Mammal. Biol. 56: 88–93.Search in Google Scholar
Kaufman, L. and P.J. Rousseeuw. 2005. Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ. pp. 368.Search in Google Scholar
Kojadinović, I., I.C. Lerman and P. Peter. 2007. LLAhclust: hierarchical clustering of variables or objects based on the likelihood linkage analysis method. R package version 0.2–2. Available from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~ivan/LLAhclust.Search in Google Scholar
Koubek, P. and V. Hrabě. 1983. Dynamics of horn growth in the Jeseníky Mts. population of chamois, Rupicapra rupicapra (ČSSR). Folia Zool. 32: 97–107.Search in Google Scholar
Kovarovic, K., L.C. Aiello, A. Cardini and C.A. Lockwood. 2011. Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true? J. Archaeol. Sci. 38: 3006–3018.10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.028Search in Google Scholar
Kuhl, F.P. and C.R. Giardina. 1982. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput. Graphics Image Process. 18: 236–258.10.1016/0146-664X(82)90034-XSearch in Google Scholar
Lecarme, O. and K. Delvare. 2011. GIMP manuel de référence pour l’édition d’images en logiciel libre. Pearson Education, Paris, France. pp. 732.Search in Google Scholar
Lerman, I.C. 1991. Foundations of the Likelihood Linkage Analysis (LLA) classification method. Appl. Stochastic Models Data Anal. 7: 63–76.10.1002/asm.3150070107Search in Google Scholar
Locati M. and S. Lovari. 1990. Sexual differences in aggressive behaviour of the Apennine chamois. Ethology 84: 295–306.10.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00804.xSearch in Google Scholar
Locati, M. and S. Lovari. 1991. Clues for dominance in female chamois: age, weight, or horn size? Aggress. Behav. 17: 11–15.Search in Google Scholar
Lovari, S. and M. Locati. 1991. Temporal relationships, transitions and structure of the behavioural repertoire in male Apennine chamois during the rut. Behaviour 119: 77–103.Search in Google Scholar
Lovari, S., F. Sacconi and G. Trivellini. 2006. Do alternative strategies of space use occur in male Alpine chamois? Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 18: 221–231.10.1080/08927014.2006.9522709Search in Google Scholar
Loy, A., S. Busilacchi, C. Costa, L. Ferlin and S. Cataudella. 2000. Comparing geometric morphometrics and outline fitting methods to monitor fish shape variability of Diplodus puntazzo (Teleostea: Sparidae). Aquat. Eng. 21: 271–283.10.1016/S0144-8609(99)00035-7Search in Google Scholar
Maechler, M., P.J. Rousseeuw, A. Stryuf, K. Hubert and K. Hornik. 2012. Cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 1.14.2. Available from http://cran.r–project.org/web/packages/cluster/cluster.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Mainguy, J., S.D. Côte, M. Festa-Bianchet and D.W. Coltman. 2009. Father-offspring phenotypic correlations suggest intralocus sexual conflict for a fitness-linked trait in a wild sexually dimorphic mammal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 4067–4075.10.1098/rspb.2009.1231Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Marcus, L.F. and M. Corti. 1996. Overview of the new, or geometric morphometrics. In: (L.F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G.J.P. Naylor and D. Slice, eds.) Advances in morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York, USA. pp. 1–13.Search in Google Scholar
Massei, G., E. Randi, G. Markov and P. Genov. 1994. Multivariate analysis of craniometric characters in Bulgarian chamois. Hystrix. 5: 17–29.Search in Google Scholar
McLellan, T. and J.A. Endler. 1998. The relative success of some methods for measuring and describing the shape of complex objects. Syst. Biol. 47: 264–281.10.1080/106351598260914Search in Google Scholar
Navarro, N., X. Zatarain and S. Montuire. 2004. Effects of morphometric descriptor changes on statistical classification and morphospaces. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 83: 243–260.10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00385.xSearch in Google Scholar
Pérez-Barbería, J., L. Robles and C. Nores. 1996. Horn growth pattern in Cantabrian chamois Rupicapra pyrenaica parva: influence of sex, location and phenology. Acta Theriol. 41: 83–92.Search in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2012. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,Vienna. Available from http://www.R–project.org.Search in Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 1990. Fitting curves to outlines. In: (F.J. Rohlf and F.L. Bookstein, eds.) Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 167–177.Search in Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. 2008. tpsDig2 for Windows version 2.12. Departament of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Book, NY.Search in Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. and J.W. Archie. 1984. A comparison of Fourier methods for the description of wing shape in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst. Biol. 33: 302–317.10.2307/2413076Search in Google Scholar
Rughetti, A. and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2011. Seasonal changes in sexual size dimorphism in northern chamois. J. Zool. 284: 257–264.10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00800.xSearch in Google Scholar
Scala, C. and S. Lovari. 1984. Revision of Rupicapra genus. II. A skull and horn statistical comparison of Rupicapra rupicapra ornata and R. rupicapra pyrenaica chamois. It. J. Zool. 51: 285–294.10.1080/11250008409439467Search in Google Scholar
Schröder, W. and I. Von Elsner-Schack. 1985. Correct age determination in chamois. In: (S. Lovari, ed.) The biology and management of mountain ungulates. Croom Helm, London, UK. pp. 65–70.Search in Google Scholar
Sheets, H.D., K.M. Covino, J.M. Panasiewicz and S.R. Morris. 2006. Comparison of geometric morphometric outline methods in the discrimination of age-related differences in feather shape. Front. Zool. 15: 3–15.10.1186/1742-9994-3-15Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Stankowich, T. and T. Caro. 2009. Evolution of weaponry in female bovids. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 4329–4334.10.1098/rspb.2009.1256Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Von Hardenberg, A., B. Bassano, A. Peracino and S. Lovari. 2000. Male Alpine chamois occupy territories at hotspots before the mating season. Ethology 106: 617–630.10.1046/j.1439-0310.2000.00579.xSearch in Google Scholar
Von Sägesser, H. and F. Krapp. 1986. Rupicapra rupicapra (Linnaeus, 1758) – Gemse, Gams. In: (J. Von Niethammer and F. Krapp, eds.) Handbuch Säugetiere Europas. Aula Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany. pp. 316–348.Search in Google Scholar
Zelditch, M., D. Swiderski, H.D. Sheets and W.L. Fink. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA. pp. 416.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter
