FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Proceedings. Biological sciences2017; 284(1864); 20171241; doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1241

Morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of two domestic taxa: the horse and donkey.

Abstract: Organisms are organized into suites of anatomical structures that typically covary when developmentally or functionally related, and this morphological integration plays a determinant role in evolutionary processes. Artificial selection on domestic species causes strong morphological changes over short time spans, frequently resulting in a wide and exaggerated phenotypic diversity. This raises the question of whether integration constrains the morphological diversification of domestic species and how natural and artificial selection may impact integration patterns. Here, we study the morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of domestic horses and donkeys, using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics on 75 skeletons. Our results indicate that a strong integration is inherited from developmental mechanisms which interact with functional factors. This strong integration reveals a specialization in the locomotion of domestic equids, partly for running abilities. We show that the integration is stronger in horses than in donkeys, probably because of a greater degree of specialization and predictability of their locomotion. Thus, the constraints imposed by integration are weak enough to allow important morphological changes and the phenotypic diversification of domestic species.
© 2017 The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2017-10-06 PubMed ID: 28978726PubMed Central: PMC5647294DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1241Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research is about studying the correlation between the structures of the skeletal system in horses and donkeys and how this relationship is influenced by both natural and artificial selection. The analysis, conducted on 75 horse and donkey skeletons, suggests that morphological integration, which is the developmental connection between different body parts, showed a higher degree of connection in horses when compared to donkeys. This, researchers believe, might be due to the higher degree of specialisation in the locomotion of horses.

Explaining the Concept of Morphological Integration

  • Morphological integration is the biological concept that explains the connection or dependency between different parts or features of an organism’s body. This study looks at such connections in the appendicular (limbs) skeleton of domestic horses and donkeys.
  • If two or more parts of an organism’s body exhibit co-variance (change together), they are said to be morphologically integrated. This concept is crucial in understanding the development, functionality, and evolution of organisms. For instance, a bird’s wing size and shape might be linked to the size of its tail feathers for balance during flight. Changing one aspect, under natural or artificial selection, might thus affect the other.

How Were the Studies Conducted?

  • Three-dimensional geometric morphometric studies were carried out on 75 horse and donkey skeletons in order to figure out how distinct the integration patterns were in these animals.
  • Geometric morphometrics is a method used in studying the shape and size differences and correlations between different structures of an organism’s body, using statistical analysis and measurements.

What Was Found?

  • Results from the study indicate that horses have a higher integration or correlation between different parts of their appendicular skeletons than donkeys.
  • One reason for this, the researchers speculate, could be the degree of movement specialization in horses. In other words, the horse’s skeletal structure may be more adapted for particular types of movement, like running, than that of donkeys’.

What Does This Mean for Evolution & Selection?

  • The findings of the study suggest that the constraints imposed by morphological integration are weak enough to allow significant morphological changes and the phenotypic diversification of domestic species.
  • This points towards the fact that in spite of the high degree of morphological integration in horses, the influence of both natural and artificial selection can bring about significant changes in the body structure of these animals.

Cite This Article

APA
Hanot P, Herrel A, Guintard C, Cornette R. (2017). Morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of two domestic taxa: the horse and donkey. Proc Biol Sci, 284(1864), 20171241. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1241

Publication

Proceedings. Biological sciences
ISSN: 1471-2954
NlmUniqueID: 101245157
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 284
Issue: 1864
PII: 20171241

Researcher Affiliations

Hanot, Pauline
  • UMR 7209 « Archéozoologie et Archéobotanique: sociétés, Pratiques et Environnements » (CNRS, MNHN), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 55 rue Buffon CP 56, 75005 Paris, France pauline.hanot@mnhn.fr.
Herrel, Anthony
  • UMR 7179 « Mécanismes Adaptatifs et Évolution » (CNRS, MNHN), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier CP 55, 75005 Paris, France.
Guintard, Claude
  • École Nationale Vétérinaire, de l'Agroalimentaire et de l'Alimentation, Nantes Atlantique-ONIRIS, route de Gachet, CS 40706, 44307 Nantes Cedex 03, France.
Cornette, Raphaël
  • UMR 7205 « Institut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité » (CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 45 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Biological Evolution
  • Bone and Bones / anatomy & histology
  • Breeding
  • Equidae / anatomy & histology
  • Female
  • Forelimb / anatomy & histology
  • Hindlimb / anatomy & histology
  • Horses / anatomy & histology
  • Locomotion
  • Male
  • Selection, Genetic

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 58 references
  1. Wagner GP, Altenberg L. PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY.. Evolution 1996 Jun;50(3):967-976.
    doi: 10.2307/2410639pubmed: 28565291google scholar: lookup
  2. Hallgrímsson B, Willmore K, Hall BK. Canalization, developmental stability, and morphological integration in primate limbs.. Am J Phys Anthropol 2002;Suppl 35:131-58.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10182pmc: PMC5217179pubmed: 12653311google scholar: lookup
  3. Olson EC, Miller RL. A mathematical model applied to a study of the evolution of species. Evolution 5, 325–338.
    doi: 10.2307/2405677google scholar: lookup
  4. Olson EC, Miller RL. Morphological integration. 1958.
  5. Van Valen L. The study of morphological integration. Evolution 19, 347–349.
    doi: 10.2307/2406444google scholar: lookup
  6. Magwene PM. New tools for studying integration and modularity.. Evolution 2001 Sep;55(9):1734-45.
    doi: 10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055%5B1734:NTFSIA%5D2.0.CO;2pubmed: 11681729google scholar: lookup
  7. Marroig G, Cheverud JM. A comparison of phenotypic variation and covariation patterns and the role of phylogeny, ecology, and ontogeny during cranial evolution of new world monkeys.. Evolution 2001 Dec;55(12):2576-600.
    doi: 10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055%5B2576:ACOPVA%5D2.0.CO;2pubmed: 11831671google scholar: lookup
  8. Wagner GP, Pavlicev M, Cheverud JM. The road to modularity.. Nat Rev Genet 2007 Dec;8(12):921-31.
    doi: 10.1038/nrg2267pubmed: 18007649google scholar: lookup
  9. Hallgrímsson B, Jamniczky H, Young NM, Rolian C, Parsons TE, Boughner JC, Marcucio RS. Deciphering the Palimpsest: Studying the Relationship Between Morphological Integration and Phenotypic Covariation.. Evol Biol 2009 Dec;36(4):355-376.
    doi: 10.1007/s11692-009-9076-5pmc: PMC3537827pubmed: 23293400google scholar: lookup
  10. Klingenberg CP. Morphometric integration and modularity in configurations of landmarks: tools for evaluating a priori hypotheses.. Evol Dev 2009 Jul-Aug;11(4):405-21.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2009.00347.xpmc: PMC2776930pubmed: 19601974google scholar: lookup
  11. Goswami A, Smaers JB, Soligo C, Polly PD. The macroevolutionary consequences of phenotypic integration: from development to deep time.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2014 Aug 19;369(1649):20130254.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0254pmc: PMC4084539pubmed: 25002699google scholar: lookup
  12. Cheverud JM. PHENOTYPIC, GENETIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION IN THE CRANIUM.. Evolution 1982 May;36(3):499-516.
    doi: 10.2307/2408096pubmed: 28568050google scholar: lookup
  13. Hall BK. Homology and embryonic development. In Evolutionary biology (eds Hecht MK, Macintyre RJ, Clegg MT), pp. 1–37. New York, NY: Springer.
  14. Nemeschkal HL. MORPHOMETRIC CORRELATION PATTERNS OF ADULT BIRDS (FRINGILLIDAE: PASSERIFORMES AND COLUMBIFORMES) MIRROR THE EXPRESSION OF DEVELOPMENTAL CONTROL GENES.. Evolution 1999 Jun;53(3):899-918.
    doi: 10.2307/2640730pubmed: 28565622google scholar: lookup
  15. Young NM, Hallgrímsson B. Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure.. Evolution 2005 Dec;59(12):2691-704.
    doi: 10.1554/05-233.1pubmed: 16526515google scholar: lookup
  16. Cheverud JM. Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection.. J Theor Biol 1984 Sep 21;110(2):155-71.
    doi: 10.1016/S0022-5193(84)80050-8pubmed: 6492829google scholar: lookup
  17. Bell E, Andres B, Goswami A. Integration and dissociation of limb elements in flying vertebrates: a comparison of pterosaurs, birds and bats.. J Evol Biol 2011 Dec;24(12):2586-99.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02381.xpubmed: 21955123google scholar: lookup
  18. Goswami A, Weisbecker V, Sánchez-Villagra MR. Developmental modularity and the marsupial-placental dichotomy.. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2009 May 15;312B(3):186-95.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21283pubmed: 19205003google scholar: lookup
  19. Kelly EM, Sears KE. Reduced phenotypic covariation in marsupial limbs and the implications for mammalian evolution. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 102, 22–36.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01561.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  20. Martín-Serra A, Figueirido B, Pérez-Claros JA, Palmqvist P. Patterns of morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of mammalian carnivores.. Evolution 2015 Feb;69(2):321-40.
    doi: 10.1111/evo.12566pubmed: 25403786google scholar: lookup
  21. Schmidt M, Fischer MS. Morphological integration in mammalian limb proportions: dissociation between function and development.. Evolution 2009 Mar;63(3):749-66.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00583.xpubmed: 19087186google scholar: lookup
  22. Young NM, Wagner GP, Hallgrímsson B. Development and the evolvability of human limbs.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 Feb 23;107(8):3400-5.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911856107pmc: PMC2840520pubmed: 20133636google scholar: lookup
  23. Fischer MS, Schilling N, Schmidt M, Haarhaus D, Witte H. Basic limb kinematics of small therian mammals.. J Exp Biol 2002 May;205(Pt 9):1315-38.
    pubmed: 11948208doi: 10.1242/jeb.205.9.1315google scholar: lookup
  24. Gasc JP. Comparative aspects of gait, scaling and mechanics in mammals.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2001 Dec;131(1):121-33.
    doi: 10.1016/S1095-6433(01)00457-3pubmed: 11733171google scholar: lookup
  25. Drake AG, Klingenberg CP. Large-scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs: disparity and modularity.. Am Nat 2010 Mar;175(3):289-301.
    doi: 10.1086/650372pubmed: 20095825google scholar: lookup
  26. Clutton-Brock J. Horse power: a history of the horse and the donkey in human societies. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
  27. Denis B. Les races de chevaux en France au XVIIIe siècle. Et les idées relatives à leur amélioration. Situ Rev. Patrim. 18 [online].
    doi: 10.4000/insitu.9677google scholar: lookup
  28. Lizet B. La Bête noire: À la recherche du cheval parfait. Paris, France: Les Editions de la MSH.
  29. Mulliez J. Les Chevaux du Royaume. Histoire de l’élevage du cheval et de la création des haras. Paris, France: Montalba.
  30. Musset R. L’élevage du cheval en France. Paris, France: Librairie Agricole de la Maison Rustique.
  31. Hendricks BL. International encyclopedia of horse breeds. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
  32. Hanot P, Guintard C, Lepetz S, Cornette R. Identifying domestic horses, donkeys and hybrids from archaeological deposits: a 3D morphological investigation on skeletons. J. Archaeol. Sci. 78, 88–98.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2016.12.002google scholar: lookup
  33. Bookstein FL, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Prossinger H, Schaefer K, Seidler H. Cranial integration in Homo: singular warps analysis of the midsagittal plane in ontogeny and evolution.. J Hum Evol 2003 Feb;44(2):167-87.
    doi: 10.1016/S0047-2484(02)00201-4pubmed: 12662941google scholar: lookup
  34. Adams DC. Evaluating modularity in morphometric data: challenges with the RV coefficient and a new test measure. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 565–572.
    doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12511google scholar: lookup
  35. Adams DC, Otárola-Castillo E. Geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 393–399.
    doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12035google scholar: lookup
  36. Klingenberg CP. Multivariate allometry. In Advances in morphometrics (eds Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE), pp. 23–49. New York, NY: Springer.
  37. Monteiro LR. Multivariate regression models and geometric morphometrics: the search for causal factors in the analysis of shape.. Syst Biol 1999 Mar;48(1):192-9.
    doi: 10.1080/106351599260526pubmed: 12078640google scholar: lookup
  38. Dudley AT, Ros MA, Tabin CJ. A re-examination of proximodistal patterning during vertebrate limb development.. Nature 2002 Aug 1;418(6897):539-44.
    doi: 10.1038/nature00945pubmed: 12152081google scholar: lookup
  39. Sun X, Mariani FV, Martin GR. Functions of FGF signalling from the apical ectodermal ridge in limb development.. Nature 2002 Aug 1;418(6897):501-8.
    doi: 10.1038/nature00902pubmed: 12152071google scholar: lookup
  40. Tickle C, Wolpert L. The progress zone -- alive or dead?. Nat Cell Biol 2002 Sep;4(9):E216-7.
    doi: 10.1038/ncb0902-e216pubmed: 12205485google scholar: lookup
  41. Wolpert L. The progress zone model for specifying positional information.. Int J Dev Biol 2002;46(7):869-70.
    doi: 10.1387/ijdb.12455622pubmed: 12455622google scholar: lookup
  42. Bennett CV, Goswami A. Does developmental strategy drive limb integration in marsupials and monotremes?. Mamm. Biol. 76, 79–83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2010.01.004google scholar: lookup
  43. Fabre AC, Goswami A, Peigné S, Cornette R. Morphological integration in the forelimb of musteloid carnivorans.. J Anat 2014 Jul;225(1):19-30.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.12194pmc: PMC4089343pubmed: 24836555google scholar: lookup
  44. Lawler RR. Morphological integration and natural selection in the postcranium of wild verreaux's sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi).. Am J Phys Anthropol 2008 Jun;136(2):204-13.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20795pubmed: 18322916google scholar: lookup
  45. Dutto DJ, Hoyt DF, Clayton HM, Cogger EA, Wickler SJ. Moments and power generated by the horse (Equus caballus) hind limb during jumping.. J Exp Biol 2004 Feb;207(Pt 4):667-74.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.00808pubmed: 14718509google scholar: lookup
  46. McGuigan MP, Wilson AM. The effect of gait and digital flexor muscle activation on limb compliance in the forelimb of the horse Equus caballus.. J Exp Biol 2003 Apr;206(Pt 8):1325-36.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.00254pubmed: 12624168google scholar: lookup
  47. Merkens HW, Schamhardt HC, Van Osch GJ, Van den Bogert AJ. Ground reaction force patterns of Dutch warmblood horses at normal trot.. Equine Vet J 1993 Mar;25(2):134-7.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1993.tb02923.xpubmed: 8467772google scholar: lookup
  48. Witte TH, Knill K, Wilson AM. Determination of peak vertical ground reaction force from duty factor in the horse (Equus caballus).. J Exp Biol 2004 Oct;207(Pt 21):3639-48.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.01182pubmed: 15371472google scholar: lookup
  49. Chamero B, Buscalioni ÁD, Marugán-Lobón J. Pectoral girdle and forelimb variation in extant Crocodylia: the coracoid–humerus pair as an evolutionary module. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 108, 600–618.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.02037.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  50. Young N. Modularity and integration in the hominoid scapula.. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2004 May 15;302(3):226-40.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21003pubmed: 15211684google scholar: lookup
  51. Young NM. Function, ontogeny and canalization of shape variance in the primate scapula.. J Anat 2006 Nov;209(5):623-36.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00639.xpmc: PMC2100339pubmed: 17062020google scholar: lookup
  52. Geiger M, Forasiepi AM, Koyabu D, Sánchez-Villagra MR. Heterochrony and post-natal growth in mammals--an examination of growth plates in limbs.. J Evol Biol 2014 Jan;27(1):98-115.
    doi: 10.1111/jeb.12279pubmed: 24251599google scholar: lookup
  53. Jones PA. Donkeys for development. Harare: Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA).
  54. Marshall F. African pastoral perspectives on domestication of the donkey: a first synthesis. In Rethinking agriculture: archaeological and ethnoarchaeological perspectives (eds Denham TP, Iriarte J, Vrydaghs L), pp. 371–407. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  55. Kimura B, Marshall FB, Chen S, Rosenbom S, Moehlman PD, Tuross N, Sabin RC, Peters J, Barich B, Yohannes H, Kebede F, Teclai R, Beja-Pereira A, Mulligan CJ. Ancient DNA from Nubian and Somali wild ass provides insights into donkey ancestry and domestication.. Proc Biol Sci 2011 Jan 7;278(1702):50-7.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0708pmc: PMC2992715pubmed: 20667880google scholar: lookup
  56. Olsen SL. Early horse domestication on the Eurasian steppe. In Documenting domestication: new genetic and archaeological paradigms, pp. 245–269. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
  57. Breuker CJ, Debat V, Klingenberg CP. Functional evo-devo.. Trends Ecol Evol 2006 Sep;21(9):488-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.003pubmed: 16806575google scholar: lookup
  58. Klingenberg CP. Developmental constraints, modules and evolvability. In Variation: a central concept in biology, pp. 219–247. San Diego: Academic Press.

Citations

This article has been cited 11 times.
  1. Conaway MA, Adams DC. An effect size for comparing the strength of morphological integration across studies. Evolution 2022 Oct;76(10):2244-2259.
    doi: 10.1111/evo.14595pubmed: 35971251google scholar: lookup
  2. Brassard C, Bălăşescu A, Arbogast RM, Forest V, Bemilli C, Boroneanţ A, Convertini F, Gandelin M, Radu V, Fleming PA, Guintard C, Kreplins TL, Callou C, Filippo A, Tresset A, Cornette R, Herrel A, Bréhard S. Unexpected morphological diversity in ancient dogs compared to modern relatives. Proc Biol Sci 2022 May 25;289(1975):20220147.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0147pubmed: 35582797google scholar: lookup
  3. Mallet C, Billet G, Houssaye A, Cornette R. A first glimpse at the influence of body mass in the morphological integration of the limb long bones: an investigation in modern rhinoceroses. J Anat 2020 Oct;237(4):704-726.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13232pubmed: 32519813google scholar: lookup
  4. Hanot P, Herrel A, Guintard C, Cornette R. Unravelling the hybrid vigor in domestic equids: the effect of hybridization on bone shape variation and covariation. BMC Evol Biol 2019 Oct 15;19(1):188.
    doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1520-2pubmed: 31615394google scholar: lookup
  5. López-Aguirre C, Hand SJ, Koyabu D, Son NT, Wilson LAB. Postcranial heterochrony, modularity, integration and disparity in the prenatal ossification in bats (Chiroptera). BMC Evol Biol 2019 Mar 12;19(1):75.
    doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1396-1pubmed: 30866800google scholar: lookup
  6. Hanot P, Herrel A, Guintard C, Cornette R. The impact of artificial selection on morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of domestic horses. J Anat 2018 Apr;232(4):657-673.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.12772pubmed: 29315551google scholar: lookup
  7. Najeb M, Samy A, Rizk A, Mosbah E, Karrouf G. Clinical benefits of early-stage autologous conditioned serum and injectable platelet-rich fibrin on healing superficial digital flexor tendonitis in donkeys. Ir Vet J 2025 Jun 7;78(1):13.
    doi: 10.1186/s13620-025-00299-ypubmed: 40483508google scholar: lookup
  8. Mallet C, Houssaye A. Deciphering the influence of evolutionary legacy and functional constraints on the patella: an example in modern rhinoceroses amongst perissodactyls. PeerJ 2024;12:e18067.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.18067pubmed: 39469593google scholar: lookup
  9. Sánchez-Guerrero MJ, Ripollés-Lobo M, Bartolomé E, Perdomo-González DI, Valera M. The Relevance of the Expected Value of the Proportion of Arabian Genes in Genetic Evaluations for Eventing Competitions. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jun 13;13(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13121973pubmed: 37370483google scholar: lookup
  10. Rickman J, Burtner AE, Linden TJ, Santana SE, Law CJ. Size And Locomotor Ecology Have Differing Effects on the External and Internal Morphologies of Squirrel (Rodentia: Sciuridae) Limb Bones. Integr Org Biol 2023;5(1):obad017.
    doi: 10.1093/iob/obad017pubmed: 37361915google scholar: lookup
  11. Kelly EM, Marcot JD, Selwood L, Sears KE. The Development of Integration in Marsupial and Placental Limbs. Integr Org Biol 2019;1(1):oby013.
    doi: 10.1093/iob/oby013pubmed: 33791518google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.