Sexual shape dimorphism in Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) from Lake Borçka Karagöl, Türkiye
Abstract
Sexual dimorphism, i.e., differences in morphology between sexes of a species caused by intersexual differences in the strength or direction of sexual or natural selection, is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. Contrary to differences in body size, little is known about sexual shape dimorphism in anurans. Here we investigated intersexual shape differences in Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) by taking 27 linear measurements to characterize body morphology of 23 males and 23 females. Relative to their overall body size, males had longer limbs and larger eyes, while females displayed larger parotoid glands and had wider heads. We speculate that these intersexual differences may have arisen due to differences in natural and sexual selection regimes acting on males and females, especially during foraging, mate searching, or intrasexual competition.
References
Alaei, R., Pesarakloo, A., Najibzadeh, M. & Mirkamali, S. J. (2021): Life-history traits and the first demographic data of Iranian population of the West Asian Lemon-Yellow Tree Frog, Hyla savignyi (Audouin, 1827). – Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 67(3): 247–261. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.67.3.247.2021
Andersson, M. (1994): Sexual selection. – Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 624 pp.
Arantes, Í. D. C., Vasconcellos, M. M., Boas, T. C., Veludo, L. B. & Colli, G. R. (2015): Sexual dimorphism, growth, and longevity of two toad species (Anura, Bufonidae) in a Neotropical Savanna. – Copeia 103(2): 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1643/CH-14-092
Arntzen, J. W., McAtear, J., Recuero, E., Ziermann, J. M., Ohler, A., van Alphen, J. & Martinez-Solano, I. (2013): Morphological and genetic differentiation of Bufo toads: two cryptic species in Western Europe (Anura, Bufonidae). – Contributions to Zoology 82(4): 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-08204001
Berns, C. M. (2013): The evolution of sexual dimorphism: understanding mechanisms of sexual shape differences. Pp. 1-16. In: Moriyama, H. (ed.): Sexual dimorphism. – InTech, Rijeka.
Bókony, V., Üveges, B., Verebélyi, V., Ujhegyi, N. & Móricz, Á. M. (2019): Toads phenotypically adjust their chemical defences to anthropogenic habitat change. – Scientific Reports 9(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39587-3
Burrowes, P. A. (2000): Parental care and sexual selection in the Puerto Rican cave-dwelling frog, Eleutherodactylus cooki. – Herpetologica 56(3): 375–386.
Butler, M. A. & Losos, J. B. (2002): Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. – Ecological Monographs 72(4): 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2002)072[0541:MSDSSA]2.0.CO;2
Castellano, S. & Giacoma, C. (1998): Morphological variation of the green toad, Bufo viridis, in Italy: a test of causation. – Journal of Herpetology 32(4): 540–550.
Chen, W., Hudson, C. M., DeVore, J. L. & Shine, R. (2017): Sex and weaponry: The distribution of toxin storage glands on the bodies of male and female cane toads (Rhinella marina). –Ecology and Evolution 7(21): 8950–8957. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2914
Clarke, G. S., Shine, R. & Phillips, B. L. (2019): May the (selective) force be with you: Spatial sorting and natural selection exert opposing forces on limb length in an invasive amphibian. – Journal of Evolutionary Biology 32: 994–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.13504
Cox, R. M., Butler, M. A. & John-Alder, H. B. (2007): The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles. Pp. 38– 49. In: Fairbain, D., Blanckenhorn, W. U. & Székely, T. (eds): Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. – Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Crnobrnja-Isailović, J., Ćurčić, S., Stojadinović, D., Tomašević-Kolarov, N., Aleksić, I. & Tomanović, Ž. (2012): Diet composition and food preferences in adult common toads (Bufo bufo) (Amphibia: Anura: Bufonidae). – Journal of Herpetology 46(4): 562–567. https://doi.org/10.1670/10-264
Cvetković, D. D., Tomašević, N., Aleksić, I. D. & Crnobrnja-Isailović, J. M. (2005): Assessment of age and intersexual size differences in Bufo bufo. – Archives of Biological Sciences 57(2): 157–162. https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS0502157C
Davies, N. B. & Halliday, T. R. (1978): Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads Bufo bufo. – Nature 274: 683–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/274683a0
de Olivera-López, V., Camargo, A. & Maneyro, R. (2021): Morphometric differentiation and sexual dimorphism in Limnomedusa macroglossa (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) (Anura: Alsodidae) from Uruguay. Acta Herpetologica 16(1): 11–25. https://doi.org/10.36253/a_h-8955
Di Cerbo, A. R. & Biancardi, C. M. (2012): Are there real sexual morphometric differences in yellow-bellied toads (Bombina spp.; Bombinatoridae)? – Amphibia-Reptilia 33(2): 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853812X634062
Dursun, C. & Özdemir, N. (2022): Morphological variability and age structure in a population of Bufo verrucosissimus (Anura: Bufonidae) from Artvin, Turkey. – Phyllomedusa 21(1): 31–49. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v21i1p31-49
Dursun, C., Gül, S. & Özdemir, N. (2022): Sexual size and shape dimorphism in Turkish common toads (Bufo bufo Linnaeus 1758). – The Anatomical Record 305(6): 1548–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24801
Englmaier, G. K., Antonov, A. & Weiss, S. J. (2022): General patterns of sexual dimorphism in graylings (Thymallus), with a comparison to other salmonid species. – Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 32(2): 645–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09694-4
Fairbairn, D. J. (1997): Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. – Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 659–687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659
Fairbairn, D. J., Blanckenhorn, W. U., & Székely, T. (2007): Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. – Oxford University Press, Oxford, 280 pp.
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2019): An R companion to applied regression. – Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA, 608 pp.
Han, X. & Fu, J. (2013): Does life history shape sexual size dimorphism in anurans? A comparative analysis. – BMC Evolutionary Biology 13(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-27
Hebbali, A. (2020): olsrr: tools for building OLS regression models. R package version 0.5.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=olsrr
Huang, C. H., Zhong, M. J., Liao, W. B. & Kotrschal, A. (2019): Investigating the role of body size, ecology, and behavior in anuran eye size evolution. – Evolutionary Ecology 33(4): 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-019-09993-0
Hudson, C. M. & Fu, J. (2013): Male-biased sexual size dimorphism, resource defense polygyny, and multiple paternity in the Emei moustache toad (Leptobrachium boringii). – PloS One 8(6): e67502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067502
Hudson, C. M., Vidal-García, M., Murray, T. G. & Shine, R. (2020): The accelerating anuran: evolution of locomotor performance in cane toads (Rhinella marina, Bufonidae) at an invasion front. – Proceedings of the Royal Society B 287(1938): 20201964. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1964
Hudson, C. M., Brown, G. P., Blennerhassett, R. A. & Shine, R. (2021): Variation in size and shape of toxin glands among cane toads from native-range and invasive populations. – Scientific Reports 11(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80191-7
Isaac, J. L. (2005): Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals. – Mammal Review 35(1): 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00045.x
Jablonski, D. & Sadek, R. A. (2019): The Caucasian Toad, Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) in the Levant: evidence from mitochondrial DNA. – Herpetozoa 32: 255–258. https://doi.org/10.3897/herpetozoa.32.e37560
Javanbakht, H., Heidari, N. & Alinezhadi, I. (2022): Evaluation of sexual dimorphism on the basis of morphometric traits in Talysh toad, Bufo eichwaldi (Litvinchuk, Borkin, Skorinov & Rosanov, 2008), along with the evaluation of the conservation status of the species. – Nova Biologica Reperta 9(1): 17–28. https://doi.org/10.29252/nbr.9.1.17
Kassambara, A. (2020): rstatix: pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package version 0.6.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatix.
Kidov, A. A. & Matushkina, K. A. (2015): Fecundity of female Bufo caucasicus Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) in vitro. – Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Bulletin of Buryat State University 4: 75–80.
Kidov, A. A., Matushkina, K. A. & Afrin, K. A. (2017): To research expansion and variability of Bufo caucasicus Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) in Karachay-Cherkessia. – Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta – Bulletin of Tambov University. Natural and Engineering Sciences Series 22(5–1): 917–920.
Lee, J. C. (2001): Evolution of a secondary sexual dimorphism in the toad, Bufo marinus. – Copeia 2001(4): 928–935. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[0928:EOASSD]2.0.CO;2
Lehtinen, R. M. (2003): Parental care and reproduction in two species of Mantidactylus (Anura: Mantellidae). – Journal of Herpetology 37(4): 766–768.
Li, H., Chen, S., Jiang, J., He, B. & Zhang, M. (2022): Exploring sexual differences in external morphology and limb muscles of Hylarana guentheri (Anura: Ranidae) during non-breeding season. – Acta Zoologica https://doi.org/10.1111/azo.12448
Liao, W. B., Liu, W. C. & Merilä, J. (2015): Andrew meets Rensch: sexual size dimorphism and the inverse of Rensch’s rule in Andrew’s toad (Bufo andrewsi). – Oecologia 177(2): 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3147-8
Lo Valvo, M. & Giacalone, G. (2013): Biometrical analyses of a Sicilian green toad, Bufo siculus (Stõck et al. 2008), population living in Sicily. – International Journal of Morphology 31: 681–686. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022013000200055
Magalhães, R. F., Garda, A. A., Marques, N. C. S. & Brandao, R. A. (2016): Sexual dimorphism and resource utilisation by the Veadeiros waterfall frog Bokermannohyla pseudopseudis (Anura: Hylidae). – Salamandra 52(2): 171–177.
Marangoni, F., Tejedo, M. & Cogălniceanu, D. (2021): Can age and growth patterns explain the geographical variation in the body size of two toad species? – Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 93(2): e20190470. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120190470
Miaud, C., Guyétant, R. & Elmberg, J. (1999): Variations in life-history traits in the common frog Rana temporaria (Amphibia: Anura): a literature review and new data from the French Alps. – Journal of Zoology 249(1): 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb01060.x
Monnet, J. M. & Cherry, M. I. (2002): Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. – Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 269(1507): 2301–2307. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2170
Mori, E., Mazza, G. & Lovari, S. (2017): Sexual dimorphism. Pp. 1–7. In: Vonk, J. & Shakelford, T. (eds): Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior. – Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Mozaffari, O. & Moghari, E. S. (2012): Sexual dimorphism in Bufo eichwaldi’s snout shape with description of its usage in male-male competition. – Russian Journal of Herpetology 19(4): 349–351. https://doi.org/10.30906/1026-2296-2012-19-4-349-351
Oka, Y., Ohtani, R., Satou, M. & Ueda, K. (1984): Sexually dimorphic muscles in the forelimb of the Japanese toad, Bufo japonicus. – Journal of Morphology 308: 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051800310
Olsson, M., Shine, R., Wapstra, E., Ujvari, B. & Madsen, T. (2002): Sexual dimorphism in lizard body shape: the roles of sexual selection and fecundity selection. – Evolution 56(7): 1538–1542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01464.x
Orlova, V. F. & Tuniyev, B. S. (1989). On the taxonomy of the Caucasian common toads belonging to the group Bufo bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas) (Amphibia, Anura, Bufonidae). – Bjulleten’ Moskovskogo Obscestva Ispytatelej Prirody Otdel biologiceskij 94(3): 13–24.
Özdemir, N., Dursun, C., Üzüm, N., Kutrup, B. & Gül, S. (2020): Taxonomic assessment and distribution of common toads (Bufo bufo and B. verrucosissimus) in Turkey based on morphological and molecular data. – Amphibia-Reptilia 41(3): 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-bja10009
Parker, G. A. (1992): The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in fish. – Journal of Fish Biology 41: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb03864.x
Petrović, T. G., Vukov, T. D. & Kolarov, N. T. (2017): Sexual dimorphism in size and shape of traits related to locomotion in nine anuran species from Serbia and Montenegro. – Folia Zoologica 66(1): 11–21. https://doi.org/10.25225/fozo.v66.i1.a4.2017
Pincheira‐Donoso, D. & Hunt, J. (2017): Fecundity selection theory: concepts and evidence. – Biological Reviews 92(1): 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arab055
Pincheira-Donoso, D., Harvey, L. P., Grattarola, F., Jara, M., Cotter, S. C., Tregenza, T. & Hodgson, D. J. (2021): The multiple origins of sexual size dimorphism in global amphibians. – Global Ecology and Biogeography 30(2): 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13230
Quiroga, L. B., Sanabria, E. A. & Marangoni, F. (2015): Sexual size dimorphism and age in Odontophrynus cf. barrioi (Anura: Odontophrynidae) from the Monte Desert, Argentina. – Journal of Herpetology 49(4): 627–632. https://doi.org/10.1670/13-216
R Core Team. (2022): R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Račković, J. K., Kolarov, N. T. & Vukov, T. (2019): The ventral cranial size and shape variation between males and females of European brown frogs: Rana dalmatina, R. graeca and R. temporaria (Anura, Amphibia). – Bulletin of Natural Sciences Research 9(2): 6–11. https://doi.org/10.5937/univtho9-21223
Reading, C. J. (1986): Egg production in the common toad, Bufo bufo. – Journal of Zoology 208(1): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1986.tb04712.x
Recuero, E., Canestrelli, D., Vörös, J., Szabó, K., Poyarkov, N. A., Arntzen, J. W., W, Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Kidov, A. A., Cogalniceanu, D., Caputo, F. P., Nascetti, G. & Martínez-Solano, I. (2012): Multilocus species tree analyses resolve the radiation of the widespread Bufo bufo species group (Anura, Bufonidae). – Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62(1): 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.008
Regueira, E., Dávila, C., Sassone, A. G., O’Donohoe, M. E. A. & Hermida, G. N. (2017): Post-metamorphic development of skin glands in a true toad: Parotoids versus dorsal skin. – Journal of Morphology 278(5): 652–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20661
Revelle, W. (2021): psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. – Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Sanches, P. R., Santana, M. M., Oliveira-Souza, A. E. & Costa-Campos, C. E. (2022): Sexual dimorphism in Rhinella major (Anura: Bufonidae) from eastern Brazilian Amazonia. – North-Western Journal of Zoology 18(2): 214–217.
Shine, R. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. – Copeia 1979(2): 297–306. https://doi.org/10.2307/1443418
Shine, R. (1989): Ecological causes for the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a review of the evidence. – The Quarterly Review of Biology 64(4): 419–461. https://doi.org/10.1086/416458
Shuker, D. M., & Kvarnemo, C. (2021). The definition of sexual selection. – Behavioral Ecology 32(5): 781–794. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arab055
Sinsch, U., Schneider, H., Tarkhnishvili, D. N. (2009): Bufo bufo Superspezies – Erdkröten-Artenkreis – taxon bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) – Erdkröte – taxon gredosicola L. Müller und Hellmich, 1935 – Gredoserdkröte – taxon spinosus Daudin, 1803 – Riesenerdkröte – taxon verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1811) – Kolchische Erdkröte. Pp. 191–335. In: Grossenbacher, K. (ed.). Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas. Froschlurche II. – Aula Verlag, Wiebelsheim.
Silva, N. R., Berneck, B. V., Da Silva, H. R., Haddad, C. F., Zamudio, K. R., Mott, T., Nali, R. C., & Prado, C. P. (2020): Egg-laying site, fecundity and degree of sexual size dimorphism in frogs. – Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 131(3): 600–610. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blaa126
Tarkhnishvili, D. (1993): Anurans of Borjomi Canyon: clutch parameters and guild structure. – Alytes 11(4): 140–154.
Tarkhnishvili, D. N. (1994): Breeding of the toad Bufo verrucosissimus: sexual dimorphism and shifting spawning sites. – Amphibia-Reptilia 15(2): 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853894X00290
Üzüm, N., Özdemir, N., Dursun, C., Kutrup, B. & Gül, S. (2021): Interspecific and intraspecific size and shape variation in skull of two closely related species Bufo bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) and Bufo verrucosissimus (Pallas, 1814) from Turkey. – Turkish Journal of Zoology 45(2): 91–101. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-2009-8
Vági, B. & Hettyey, A. (2016). Intraspecific and interspecific competition for mates: Rana temporaria males are effective satyrs of Rana dalmatina females. – Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70: 1477– 484.
Valdez, V. & Maneyro, R. (2016). Reproductive biology of Odontophrynus americanus females (Duméril & Bribon, 1841) (Anura, Cycloramphidae) from Uruguay. – Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 11(3): 188–197.
Vitt, L. J. & Cooper Jr, W. E. (1985): The evolution of sexual dimorphism in the skink Eumeces laticeps: an example of sexual selection. – Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(5): 995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1139/z85-148
Vukov, T., Krstičić, J., Petrović, T. & Tomašević Kolarov, N. (2018): Patterns of cranial sexual dimorphism in the yellow-bellied toad (Bombina variegata, Bombinatoridae). – North-Western Journal of Zoology 14(1): 44–49.
Walesiak, M. & Dudek, A. (2020). The choice of variable normalization method in cluster analysis. Pp. 325–340. In: Soliman, K. S. (ed.): Education excellence and innovation management: A 2025 vision to sustain economic development during global challenges. – International Business Information Management Association, Sevilla.
Wickham, H. (2016): ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, 276 pp.
Woolbright, L. L. (1983): Sexual selection and size dimorphism in anuran amphibia. – The American Naturalist 121(1): 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1086/284042
Xiong, J. L., Liu, X. Y., Zhang, X. M., Li, M. Y. & Min, Y. (2016a). Sexual dimorphism of the Jilin Clawed Salamander, Onychodactylus zhangyapingi (Urodela: Hynobiidae: Onychodactylinae) from Jilin Province, China. – Asian Herpetological Research 7: 220–226. https://doi.org/10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.150057
Xiong, J., Li, M., Liu, X. & Zhang, X. (2016b). Sexual dimorphism in Yellow-Spotted Salamander, Pseudohynobius flavomaculatus (Urodela: Hynobiidae). – Russian Journal of Herpetology 23(3): 235–238. https://doi.org/1026-229620162303-0235
Yu, B. G., Zheng, R. Q., Zhang, Y. & Liu, C. T. (2010): Geographic variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism in the giant spiny frog Paa spinosa (David, 1875) (Anura: Ranoidae). – Journal of Natural History 44(27–28): 1729–1741. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222931003632682
Zamora-Camacho, F. J. (2022): Sex and habitat differences in size and coloration of an amphibian’s poison glands match differential predator pressures. – Integrative Zoology 17(5): 764–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12597
Zhang, F., Yuan, C. & Feng, A. S. (2020a): Female concave-eared torrent frogs prefer smaller males. – Journal of Zoology 311(4): 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12775
Zhang, L., Sheng, Y., Yuan, X., Yu, F., Zhong, X. & Chen, X. (2020b): Sexual dimorphism in Scutiger boulengeri, an endemic toad from the Tibetan Plateau. – Animal Biology 70(4): 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1163/15707563-bja10041
Zhiping, M. I. (2013): Sexual dimorphism in the hindlimb muscles of the Asiatic toad (Bufo gargarizans) in relation to male reproductive success. – Asian Herpetological Research 4(1): 56–61. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1245.2013.00056
Copyright (c) 2023 Cantekin Dursun, Nurhayat Özdemir, Serkan Gül
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Manuscripts must be solely the work of the author(s) stated, must not have been previously published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal. This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The authors retain copyright and publishing rights without restrictions of papers published in Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.
