Next Article in Journal
Phenotypically Induced Intraspecific Variation in the Morphological Development of Wetland and Stream Galaxias gollumoides McDowall and Chadderton
Previous Article in Journal
Widespread Occurrence of a Rarely Known Association between the Hydrocorals Stylaster roseus and Millepora alcicornis at Bonaire, Southern Caribbean
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/d12060219
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Morphometric Response of Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns) to Lake Colonization in Chile

by
Margaret Mercer
1,
Peter C. Searle
1,
Roberto Cifuentes
2,
Evelyn Habit
2 and
Mark C. Belk
1,*
1
Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
2
Departmento de Sistemas Acuáticos, Facultad de Ciencias Ambientales y Centro EULA, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4100000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2020, 12(6), 219; https://doi.org/10.3390/d12060219
Submission received: 6 May 2020 / Revised: 27 May 2020 / Accepted: 29 May 2020 / Published: 31 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Diversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Body and head shape in fish responds to environmental factors such as water flow rate, food sources, and niche availability. However, the way in which fish respond to these environmental factors varies. In Central Chile, multiple river and lake systems along the coast provide an ideal study site to investigate these types of shape changes. We use geometric morphometrics to characterize shape differences in Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns) between river and lake populations. Lake fish converge on a shape with a more fusiform body, narrower head, and larger eyes, while river fish have a more robust body, rounder head, and smaller eyes. These shape changes are consistent with a shift to zooplanktivorous foraging in lakes, as evidenced in other systems. Unlike some fish species that develop polymorphisms in body shape after colonization (e.g., benthic and limnetic forms), G. maculatus in lakes exhibit a monomorphic limnetic form.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The ecomorphological hypothesis suggests that the morphological traits of organisms should reflect the conditions of the environments they inhabit, and this idea has been acknowledged for over 100 years [1,2,3,4,5]. Organisms in lotic environments (rivers) tend to exhibit consistent and predictable morphometric differences compared to those in lentic environments (lakes). These general morphometric responses to lake colonization are primarily influenced by differences in flow rate [6,7,8,9,10,11]. In addition, many organisms exhibit location-dependent morphometric variation due to differential pressures from biotic factors (predator abundance, food availability, and resource competition) as well as abiotic factors (temperature, nutrient composition, and energy sources) [8,9,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].
Environmental conditions may alter the shapes of fish by the mechanism of natural selection leading to adaptive divergence [4,21,22] or via a phenotypic plasticity response [7,23,24,25,26,27]. Adaptation involves the multi-generational change of a population’s phenotype by means of natural selection or the differential survival and reproduction of individuals. The phenotypes accumulated by adaptation are heritable and based on genetic differences [4,21,22]. Plasticity occurs when an individual expresses a different phenotype in response to different environmental conditions. The changes resulting from plasticity occur within an individual’s lifetime and they are not heritable [23,27,28]. Both of these processes result in populations displaying traits that are suited to the conditions of their environments [3,4,10,21,23,26], and they are not mutually exclusive.
Morphometric differentiation in response to environmental variation can occur within species [7,8,9,11]. For example, river dwelling fish species often colonize lakes and establish isolated populations. This transition frequently leads to morphometric divergence between the source population and the colonizing population in response to the different flow rates present in rivers and lakes [7,8,9,10,11]. High flow environments tend to favor fish that are better suited for steady swimming [3,10,11]. This steady swimming is optimized by the development of a relatively fusiform body shape [3,11,29]. Meanwhile, lakes are relatively complex environments in which unsteady swimming is favored; unsteady swimming is associated with a more robust body shape [10,11,29]. These pressures result in lake fish generally developing relatively robust bodies [6,7,8,10]. However, this response is not universal. Several studies have found lake dwelling fish with more fusiform bodies than their river dwelling conspecifics [7,9]. Why some fish might respond differently to the colonization of lake environments remains poorly understood.
Galaxias maculatus is the most widely distributed diadromous fish in the southern hemisphere. It occurs in rivers and lakes in Australia, New Zealand, and Southern South America (Chile and Argentina) [30,31,32]. As adults, the individuals are small (about 100 mm) and elongate with generally slender bodies [33]. Although G. maculatus are typically river-dwelling [34], some populations in Chile have become isolated in lakes [31,35,36]. These landlocked populations have little to no gene flow with their original source river populations [32,34,37,38,39]. This genetic isolation is significant if the variation between populations is based on underlying, heritable differences rather than phenotypic plasticity. These river and lake systems provide an ideal study site for investigating the morphometric divergence between river and lake G. maculatus.
We characterized the morphometric response of multiple populations of G. maculatus to lake colonization in Chile. We used geometric morphometrics to quantify the general effects of lake colonization and body size on body and head shape among river and lake populations. We identified a convergent morphometric response to lake colonization in G. maculatus and a differential effect of body size on shape in river or lake environments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site and Collection

To quantify the general effect of lake colonization, we took advantage of the natural variation in the environments where G. maculatus is found in Chile. Galaxias maculatus is widespread in many river systems and has become isolated in a large number of lakes. Selecting populations from rivers and lakes across a latitudinal gradient and in different drainage basins allowed us to test for a general morphometric response to lake colonization. These lake populations represent multiple independent transitions from river to lake environments and, along with the extant river populations, provide the critical comparison needed to determine the general response to lake colonization.
We collected G. maculatus from a total of 16 populations in Chile (7 rivers, 9 lakes; Figure 1). All collections were done under the auspices of Dirección de Investigación, Universidad de Concepción, following Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocols (Resolución Exenta N° 3738, 8 November 2005 of the Undersecretariat of Fisheries). We collected 30 specimens from each population in March 2006 with seines and backpack electrofishing equipment. All individuals were considered pre-reproductive based on their size, the time of year they were collected, and the undeveloped nature of their gonads. All fish were considered to be about the same age and represented individuals that had hatched the previous November and would have spawned the following November. Galaxias maculatus is considered sexually monomorphic in terms of its body shape and coloration [33,35,40], so we did not differentiate between males and females in our sample. Specimens collected from the seven river populations (n = 210) had a mean standard length of 55.5 mm (±10.8, SD). Specimens collected from the nine lake populations (n = 270) had a mean standard length of 49.3 mm (±5.4 mm, SD). We euthanized specimens with an overdose of BZ-20 (20% ethyl p-aminobenzoate), measured the standard length of each fish, and assigned them ID numbers. We photographed the body and head of each freshly-killed fish from the left lateral view for morphometric analysis. Voucher specimens were deposited in the EULA-Chile Center (University de Concepción, Concepción, Chile); however, all specimens were destroyed as a consequence of the earthquake in 2010.

2.2. Geometric Morphometrics

We used landmark-based geometric morphometrics to characterize body shape. Using the program tpsDig, we digitized landmarks and semi-landmarks [41,42]. To characterize body shape, we used 10 landmarks on 477 specimens (Figure 2). We included all 30 specimens per location except for 3 specimens that were not positioned correctly (Bueno River, n = 1; Natri Lake, n = 2). Our landmarks included (1) anterior maximum of nose, (2) juncture of the ventral margin of the operculum with the ventral outline of the body, (3) projection of the x-value of landmark 2 on the dorsal outline, (4) anterior origin of the dorsal fin, (5) anterior origin of the pelvic fin, (6) midpoint between landmarks 1 and 4 on the dorsal outline, (7) midpoint between landmarks 1 and 5 on the ventral outline, (8) posterior extent of the body at the vertical midpoint, (9) midpoint between landmarks 4 and 8 on the dorsal outline, and (10) midpoint between landmarks 5 and 8 on the ventral outline. Landmarks 6, 7, 9, and 10 were sliding semi-landmarks.
To characterize the shape of the head, we used 11 landmarks on 186 specimens (Figure 3). We randomly subsampled 12 specimens from each population, with the exception of Natri Lake. Only 6 specimens from Natri Lake were of suitable image quality, and subsampling was not possible. Our landmarks included (1) anterior maximum of nose, (2) dorsal maximum of eye, (3) ventral maximum of eye, (4) posterior maximum of eye projected onto the dorsal outline, (5) posterior maximum of eye projected onto the ventral outline, (6) anterior maximum of eye projected onto the ventral outline, (7) anterior maximum of eye projected onto the dorsal outline, (8) projection of the x-value of landmark 9 on the dorsal outline, (9) juncture of the ventral margin of the operculum with the ventral outline of the body, (10) midpoint between landmarks 1 and 7 on the dorsal outline, and (11) midpoint between landmarks 1 and 6 on the ventral outline. Landmarks 10 and 11 were sliding semi-landmarks.
We used our landmark coordinates in the program tpsRelW to generate shape variables [41]. We aligned the specimens and used a generalized Procrustes analysis to remove non-shape variation [43]. We then generated shape variables in the form of partial warps and uniform components (W or weight matrix). We used a principal component analysis of the W (weight) matrix to produce relative warps as our measures of shape for analysis. Relative warps are therefore linear combinations of uniform and non-uniform shape components that are orthogonal to each other [42,44,45]. Since relative warps are the principal components of the W matrix, relative warps concentrate shape variation in the first few relative warps compared to later relative warps. Relative warps analysis allows a reduction in the number of shape variables to be used in further analysis [18,46]. We conducted a statistical analysis of shape variation, using the first nine of sixteen relative warps for body shape and the first nine of eighteen relative warps for head shape as our response variables. The first 9 relative warps accounted for 98% of the shape variation in the body view and 97% of the shape variation in the head view.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

We used a multivariate linear mixed model to determine the effects of river or lake environments and centroid size (i.e., a multivariate measure of size derived from the shape analysis) on shape variation in G. maculatus. We ran a separate analysis for body and head shape. The response variable in both analyses was shape, as characterized by the first 9 relative warps. A mixed model framework assumes a univariate response variable, so we vectorized the shape variables such that each row represented one response variable, but each individual was represented by multiple rows of data [47]. Thus, the first row represented relative warp 1 for the first specimen, the second row represented relative warp 2 for the first specimen, and so forth until all relative warps were represented in successive rows for the first individual. The same pattern was repeated for all individuals, each with nine rows. The predictor variables were river/lake environment; centroid size; an index variable to account for the order of relative warps [11,48,49]; interactions between the main effects and the index variable; and the three-way interaction between river/lake environment, centroid size, and the index variable. The index variable preserved the order of the relative warps such that comparisons between groups (e.g., river/lake environment) were made by matching each relative warp to the same relative warp in each group (i.e., relative warp 1 in the river environment was compared to relative warp 1 in the lake environment). Thus, it was the three-way interaction between the main effects and the index variable that tested the hypothesis of interest (i.e., does shape vary on at least some of the relative warps between river and lake environments with centroid size?). Main effects by themselves were tested for an average effect across all relative warps. Since relative warps are principal components, they have a mean of 0; more importantly, they have an arbitrary ordination. Thus, a single individual may have a positive score on some relative warps and a negative score on other relative warps so that their mean score across all relative warps may be near 0. It was only by matching relative warps in the same order (by using the index variable as a predictor) that we could accurately test the hypothesis of interest [50].
Finally, we included two random effects in our model, individual ID and location. We included individual ID as a random effect in our model because we had multiple shape variables per individual. We included location as a random effect in our model to adjust for the variation that is inherent to a natural experiment, including the variation along the latitudinal gradient and between drainage basins. This allowed us to test for a general morphometric response to lake colonization [50]. Degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward–Roger method [51]. We used Proc MIXED in SAS to run all analyses (SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
To visualize the effects of river and lake environments on shape, we plotted least squares means of shape on relative warps 1 and 2 (error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean). To visualize the effect of variation in centroid size on body and head shape, we plotted lines with endpoints represented by ±1 SD of mean centroid size (i.e., mean centroid size plus one standard deviation represents shape of larger individuals and mean centroid size minus one standard deviation represents shape of smaller individuals). This allows us to visualize the difference in direction and magnitude of shape variation associated with variation of centroid size. Relative warps 1 and 2 accounted for about 55% of the body shape variation and about 60% of the head shape variation. We used thin-plate spline representations of shape at positive and negative extremes of relative warps 1 and 2 to characterize the range of shape variation represented on each relative warp [52].

3. Results

The body and head shape of G. maculatus differed significantly depending on whether an individual was from a river or lake environment and on its size (three-way interaction with index variable; Table 1). River fish had robust bodies, whereas lake fish had fusiform bodies. The change in body shape associated with size was four times greater in river environments than lake environments over the same size range (Figure 4). River fish had smaller eyes and rounder heads, whereas lake fish had larger eyes and narrower heads which came to a sharper point. The change in head shape associated with size was about the same in river and lake environments over the same size range (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Lake populations of G. maculatus exhibit a fusiform body relative to their riverine counterparts. In fish, robust bodies are typically favored in complex environments which require unsteady swimming, whereas fusiform body shapes are favored in high-flow environments which require steady swimming [3,6,10,32,39,53,54]. However, several studies, including our own, found the opposite pattern; river fish were robust whereas lake fish were fusiform [9,11,55,56]. These studies suggest that factors such as niche availability and diet, in addition to flow rate, could affect the difference in shape between river and lake fish [11,55]. The development of a fusiform body is consistent with zooplanktivorous feeding. Other studies have also determined that zooplanktivorous fish generally tend toward a fusiform body [57,58,59,60].
Lake G. maculatus have larger eyes and narrower mouths. Larger eyes are generally observed in organisms with better vision [39,61,62,63] and are associated with factors like active foraging (such as zooplanktivory) [64,65,66,67], high levels of competition [68], and low levels of predation [69,70,71]. Fish that specialize in zooplanktivorous feeding strategies tend to have a greater eye size than fish occupying other niches [72,73,74,75]. This is associated with their greater need for visual acuity. In addition, zooplanktivorous fish have smaller, upturned mouths, allowing them to feed efficiently by picking individual zooplankton out of the water column [74,75]. The narrow mouth and larger eyes of G. maculatus may facilitate zooplanktivorous, visual feeding in lakes [32,37,63,76,77,78].
The shape variation we observed in G. maculatus could be due to either adaptive divergence in response to selection or adaptive divergence via phenotypic plasticity (i.e., environmentally induced change). Documented genetic isolation between river and lake populations [32,34,37,38,39] demonstrates that these systems provide the conditions necessary for selection-based adaptive divergence to occur. However, phenotypic plasticity can also result in adaptive shape variation among environments [23,24,25,26], even when gene flow is high among populations. For example, cranial shape differences observed in contrasting environments in a Central American cichlid appear to be mostly due to phenotypic plasticity [23]. Plasticity is also an important mechanism for differentiation among lake and river populations of three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), where it accounts for the majority of shape variation [24,25,26]. Thus, phenotypic plasticity could be partially or completely responsible for the morphological variation observed in G. maculatus. Divergence in form between contrasting environments as an expression of phenotypic plasticity is often the first step toward heritable adaptive divergence due to selection and eventual speciation [28]. The variation observed in our study likely resulted from adaptive divergence via natural selection or phenotypic plasticity as a consequence of the consistent environmental differences between rivers and lakes.
Although water flow is a common environmental factor that impacts the morphometric response to lake colonization, location specific environmental factors such as niche availability, geological age of the system, and genetic history can have comparable effects [2,4,7,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Niche availability is typically associated with the development of polymorphism, in which fish diverge into multiple forms adapted to specialized feeding strategies. The more niches available, the more ecological “space” there is for multiple forms in an ecosystem [25,79]. Polymorphism is a relatively common response to lake colonization. Polymorphism after lake colonization has been documented in many species, including arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), whitefish (Coregonus spp.), and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) [80,81,82,83,84]. Multiple populations of three-spined sticklebacks have diverged into two distinct forms upon lake colonization [60]. Benthic (bottom dwelling, invertivorous) individuals have deeper bodies and smaller eyes, while limnetic (open water dwelling, zooplanktivorous) individuals have narrower bodies and larger eyes [59,85]. These polymorphic sticklebacks colonized lakes that lacked competing planktivores and thus were able to fill empty niche space, reducing intraspecific resource competition [60,80,81,86].
We found no evidence for polymorphism in G. maculatus. Competition for a limited number of niches may result in specialization, which reduces adaptive potential and results in convergence into one form [87]. Galaxias maculatus shares much of its Chilean range and habitat with its relative, Galaxias platei [31,32,88]; G. platei is naturally occurring in all of the lakes we sampled for this study (E. Habit, personal observation). It is possible that these fish colonized the same lakes around the same time [31,88]. In these lakes, G. platei currently occupies the benthic zone, while G. maculatus occupies the limnetic zone [31,32,88]. These fish may have become specialized to their respective zones upon lake colonization in order to reduce interspecific competition for similar prey items. In addition, the invasion of other fish species prior to G. maculatus’ colonization could have further reduced available niches, limiting G. maculatus’ potential for polymorphism.
Environmental variation among sampling locations may have contributed to the variation we observed in the effect of size on shape (three-way interaction with index variable; Table 1). In river environments, body shape changes more with an increase in size than it does in lake environments. As fish in rivers grow, they become more robust with increased size, whereas lake fish change less in shape. Galaxias maculatus in rivers feed mainly on benthic macroinvertebrates and allochthonous organisms [32,37,77,89,90,91,92]. In addition, river fish have access to many different habitats, and some spend part of their lives in the ocean [32,34,36]. Since river fish engage in a generalist feeding strategy and occupy a variety of habitats, it may be that shape varies more with size in rivers than in lake environments.
In any comparative study of a natural system, there are multiple influences that are likely to impact the trait of interest. A slight variation in shape existed between G. maculatus in each population we sampled. This implies that location-specific factors (such as lake depth and habitat structure) may have influenced the shape of G. maculatus at each study site [84,93,94]. Location specific factors may also help explain other studies that found the opposite pattern in G. maculatus; these studies had a smaller breadth than ours and were conducted in different areas [32,39]. To account for these location-specific factors—which are inherent in any natural experiment—we included location as a random effect in our model. Despite the presence of these location-specific factors, we identified consistent shape differences between river and lake populations of G. maculatus, which is evidence of a generalized response to lake colonization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.H. and M.C.B.; Data curation, M.M., P.C.S., and M.C.B.; Formal analysis, P.C.S. and M.C.B.; Funding acquisition, E.H. and M.C.B.; Investigation, R.C., E.H., and M.C.B.; Methodology, R.C., E.H., and M.C.B.; Project administration, E.H. and M.C.B.; Resources, E.H.; Supervision, M.C.B.; Visualization, M.M., P.C.S., R.C., and M.C.B.; Writing—original draft, M.M., P.C.S., and R.C.; Writing—review & editing, M.M., P.C.S., E.H., and M.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided through the Roger and Victoria Sant Foundation, the Department of Biology, Brigham Young University and the Environmental Sciences Center EULA-Chile, University de Concepción.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the undergraduate and graduate students that helped collect and process the data. These collections were made before IACUC protocols were required for field studies, but we followed the Guidelines for The Use of Fishes in Research provided by The American Fisheries Society, the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists, and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Villaluz, A.C.; Maccrimmon, H.R. Meristic variation in milkfish Chanos chanos from Philippine waters. Mar. Biol. 1988, 97, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Douglas, M.E.; Matthews, W.J. Does morphology predict ecology-hypothesis-testing within a fresh-water stream fish assemblage. Oikos 1992, 65, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Blake, R.W. Fish functional design and swimming performance. J. Fish Biol. 2004, 65, 1193–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Casatti, L.; Castro, R.M.C. Testing the ecomorphological hypothesis in a headwater riffles fish assemblage of the rio Sao Francisco, southeastern Brazil. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 2006, 4, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bock, W.J. Concepts and methods in ecomorphology. J. Biosci. 1994, 19, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McLaughlin, R.L.; Grant, J.W.A. Morphological and behavioural differences among recently-emerged brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, foraging in slow- vs. fast-running water. Environ. Biol. Fishes 1994, 39, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pakkasmaa, S.; Piironen, J. Water velocity shapes juvenile salmonids. Evol. Ecol. 2000, 14, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brinsmead, J.; Fox, M.G. Morphological variation between lake- and stream-dwelling rock bass and pumpkinseed populations. J. Fish Biol. 2002, 61, 1619–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hendry, A.P.; Taylor, E.B.; McPhail, J.D. Adaptive divergence and the balance between selection and gene flow: Lake and stream stickleback in the misty system. Evolution 2002, 56, 1199–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Langerhans, R.B. Predictability of phenotypic differentiation across flow regimes in fishes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2008, 48, 750–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Meyers, P.J.; Belk, M.C. Shape variation in a benthic stream fish across flow regimes. Hydrobiologia 2014, 738, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nagel, L.; Schluter, D. Body size, natural selection, and speciation in sticklebacks. Evolution 1998, 52, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Ryder, R.A.; Pesendorfer, J. Large rivers are more than flowing lakes: A comparative review. In Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, Honey Harbour, ON, Canada, 14–21 September 1989. [Google Scholar]
  14. Naspleda, J.; Vila-Gispert, A.; Fox, M.G.; Zamora, L.; Ruiz-Navarro, A. Morphological variation between non-native lake- and stream-dwelling pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus in the Iberian Peninsula. J. Fish Biol. 2012, 81, 1915–1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Holopainen, I.J.; Aho, J.; Vornanen, M.; Huuskonen, H. Phenotypic plasticity and predator effects on morphology and physiology of crucian carp in nature and in the laboratory. J. Fish Biol. 1997, 50, 781–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chivers, D.P.; Zhao, X.X.; Brown, G.E.; Marchant, T.A.; Ferrari, M.C.O. Predator-induced changes in morphology of a prey fish: The effects of food level and temporal frequency of predation risk. Evol. Ecol. 2008, 22, 561–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sass, G.G.; Gille, C.M.; Hinke, J.T.; Kitchell, J.F. Whole-lake influences of littoral structural complexity and prey body morphology on fish predator-prey interactions. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 2006, 15, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Williams, T.J.; Johnson, J.B.; Belk, M.C. Interaction between predation environment and diet constrains body shape in Utah chub, Gila atraria (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2017, 122, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hugueny, B.; Pouilly, M. Morphological correlates of diet in an assemblage of West African freshwater fishes. J. Fish Biol. 1999, 54, 1310–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Karpouzi, V.S.; Stergiou, K.I. The relationships between mouth size and shape and body length for 18 species of marine fishes and their trophic implications. J. Fish Biol. 2003, 62, 1353–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Koene, J.P.; Crotti, M.; Elmer, K.R.; Adams, C.E. Differential selection pressures result in a rapid divergence of donor and refuge populations of a high conservation value freshwater fish Coregonus lavaretus (L.). Evol. Ecol. 2019, 33, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Etheridge, E.C.; Bean, C.W.; Maitland, P.S.; Adams, C.E. Morphological and ecological responses to a conservation translocation of powan (Coregonus lavaretus) in Scotland. Aquat. Conserv.-Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2010, 20, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Meyer, A. Phenotypic plasticity and heterochrony in Cichlasoma managuense (Pisces, Cichlidae) and their implications for speciation in Cichlid fishes. Evolution 1987, 41, 1357–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Spoljaric, M.A.; Reimchen, T.E. 10,000 years later: Evolution of body shape in Haida Gwaii three-spined stickleback. J. Fish Biol. 2007, 70, 1484–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Spoljaric, M.A.; Reimchen, T.E. Habitat-dependent reduction of sexual dimorphism in geometric body shape of Haida Gwaii threespine stickleback. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2008, 95, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Spoljaric, M.A.; Reimchen, T.E. Habitat-Specific Trends in Ontogeny of Body Shape in Stickleback From Coastal Archipelago: Potential for Rapid Shifts in Colonizing Populations. J. Morphol. 2011, 272, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ali, M.Y.; Lindsey, C.C. Heritable and temperature-induced meristic variation in the medaka, Oryzias latipes. Can. J. Zool.-Rev. Can. Zool. 1974, 52, 959–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nonaka, E.; Svanback, R.; Thibert-Plante, X.; Englund, G.; Brannstrom, A. Mechanisms by Which Phenotypic Plasticity Affects Adaptive Divergence and Ecological Speciation. Am. Nat. 2015, 186, E126–E143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Langerhans, R.B.; Reznick, D.N. Ecology and evolution of swimming performance in fishes: Predicting evolution with biomechanics. In Fish Locomotion: An Eco Ethological Perspective; Domenici, P., Kapoor, B.G., Eds.; Science Publisher: Enfield, CT, USA, 2009; pp. 200–248. [Google Scholar]
  30. McDowall, R.M. The species problem in freshwater fishes and the taxonomy of diadromous and lacustrine populations of Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns). J. R. Soc. New Zealand 1972, 2, 325–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Barriga, J.P.; Battini, M.A.; Macchi, P.J.; Milano, D.; Cussac, V.E. Spatial and temporal distribution of landlocked Galaxias maculatus and Galaxias platei (Pisces: Galaxiidae) in a lake in the South American Andes. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2002, 36, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cussac, V.E.; Barrantes, M.E.; Boy, C.C.; Górski, K.; Habit, E.; Lattuca, M.E.; Rojo, J.H. New Insights into the Distribution, Physiology and Life Histories of South American Galaxiid Fishes, and Potential Threats to this Unique Fauna. Diversity 2020, 12, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McDowall, R.M.; Frankenburg, R.S. The Galaxiid Fishes of Australia. In Australian Museum Scientific Publications; Australian Museum: Sydney, Australia, 1981; pp. 443–605. [Google Scholar]
  34. Delgado, M.L.; Gorski, K.; Habit, E.; Ruzzante, D.E. The effects of diadromy and its loss on genomic divergence: The case of amphidromous Galaxias maculatus populations. Mol. Ecol. 2019, 5217–5231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. McDowall, R.M. Galaxias Maculatus (Jenyns), the New Zealand Whitebait; Fisheries Research Division: Wellington, NZ, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  36. McDowall, R.M. On amphidromy, a distinct form of diadromy in aquatic organisms. Fish. Fish. 2007, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pollard, D.A. The biology of a landlocked form of the normally catadromous salmoniform fish Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns). Mar. Freshw. Res. 1971, 22, 91–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zattara, E.E.; Premoli, A.C. Genetic structuring in Andean landlocked populations of Galaxias maculatus: Effects of biogeographic history. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 32, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rojo, J.H.; Fernandez, D.A.; Figueroa, D.E.; Boy, C.C. Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between diadromous and landlocked puyen Galaxias maculatus. J. Fish Biol. 2020, 96, 956–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Torres, A.G.; Bailly, N. Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns, 1842) Inanga. In FishBase. Available online: https://www.fishbase.se/search.php (accessed on 7 November 2019).
  41. Rohlf, F.J. tpsRelw, RWs Analysis. Available online: https://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/ (accessed on 15 October 2019).
  42. Bookstein, F.L. Principal warps-thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1989, 11, 567–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Rohlf, F.J.; Slice, D. Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 1990, 39, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Rohlf, F.J.; Marcus, L.F. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bookstein, F.L. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wesner, J.S.; Billman, E.J.; Meier, A.; Belk, M.C. Morphological convergence during pregnancy among predator and nonpredator populations of the livebearing fish Brachyrhaphis rhabdophora (Teleostei: Poeciliidae). Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2011, 104, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Anderson, T.W. An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ingley, S.J.; Billman, E.J.; Belk, M.C.; Johnson, J.B. Morphological Divergence Driven by Predation Environment within and between Species of Brachyrhaphis Fishes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Heins, D.C.; Baker, J.A. Stream-flow environment predicts divergent life history phenotypes among populations of the Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta: Temporal stability of a large-scale pattern. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 2018, 27, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Roth-Monzón, A.; Belk, M.C.; Zúñiga-Vega, J.J.; Johnson, J.B. Beyond pairwise interactions: Multispecies character displacement in Mexican freshwater fish communities. American Naturalist. Am. Nat. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Kenward, M.G.; Roger, J.H. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997, 53, 983–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Zelditch, M.; Swiderski, D.; Sheets, H. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  53. Langerhans, R.B.; Layman, C.A.; Langerhans, A.K.; Dewitt, T.J. Habitat-associated morphological divergence in two Neotropical fish species. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2003, 80, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Sidlauskas, B.; Chernoff, B.; Machado-Allison, A. Geographic and environmental variation in Bryconops sp cf. melanurus (Ostariophysi: Characidae) from the Brazilian Pantanal. Ichthyol. Res. 2006, 53, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Krabbenhoft, T.J.; Collyer, M.L.; Quattro, J.M. Differing evolutionary patterns underlie convergence on elongate morphology in endemic fishes of Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2009, 98, 636–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Franssen, N.R.; Stewart, L.K.; Schaefer, J.F. Morphological divergence and flow-induced phenotypic plasticity in a native fish from anthropogenically altered stream habitats. Ecol. Evol. 2013, 3, 4648–4657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Robinson, B.W.; Wilson, D.S. Genetic variation and phenotypic plasticity in a trophically polymorphic population of pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). Evol. Ecol. 1996, 10, 631–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hjelm, J.; van de Weerd, G.H.; Sibbing, F.A. Functional link between foraging performance, functional morphology, and diet shift in roach (Rutilus rutilus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2003, 60, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Willacker, J.J.; Von Hippel, F.A.; Wilton, P.R.; Walton, K.M. Classification of threespine stickleback along the benthic-limnetic axis. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2010, 101, 595–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Schluter, D.; McPhail, J.D. Ecological character displacement and speciation in sticklebacks. Am. Nat. 1992, 140, 85–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Veilleux, C.C.; Kirk, E.C. Visual acuity in mammals: Effects of eye size and ecology. Brain Behav. Evol. 2014, 83, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Caves, E.M.; Sutton, T.T.; Johnsen, S. Visual acuity in ray-finned fishes correlates with eye size and habitat. J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 220, 1586–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Rowe, D.K.; Dean, T.L. Effects of turbidity on the feeding ability of the juvenile migrant stage of six New Zealand freshwater fish species. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1998, 32, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bauer, T.; Kredler, M. Morphology of the compound eyes as an indicator of life-style in carabid beetles. Can. J. Zool.-Rev. Can. Zool. 1993, 71, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lisney, T.J.; Stecyk, K.; Kolominsky, J.; Schmidt, B.K.; Corfield, J.R.; Iwaniuk, A.N.; Wylie, D.R. Ecomorphology of eye shape and retinal topography in waterfowl (Aves: Anseriformes: Anatidae) with different foraging modes. J. Comp. Physiol. A -Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 2013, 199, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Brandon, C.S.; James, T.; Dudycha, J.L. Selection on incremental variation of eye size in a wild population of Daphnia. J. Evol. Biol. 2015, 28, 2112–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Hodge, J.R.; Alim, C.; Bertrand, N.G.; Lee, W.; Price, S.A.; Tran, B.; Wainwright, P.C. Ecology shapes the evolutionary trade-off between predator avoidance and defence in coral reef butterflyfishes. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1033–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Beston, S.M.; Walsh, M.R. Natural selection favours a larger eye in response to increased competition in natural populations of a vertebrate. Funct. Ecol. 2019, 33, 1321–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Leaver, S.D.; Reimchen, T.E. Abrupt changes in defence and trophic morphology of the giant threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus sp.) following colonization of a vacant habitat. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 2012, 107, 494–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Beston, S.M.; Wostl, E.; Walsh, M.R. The evolution of vertebrate eye size across an environmental gradient: Phenotype does not predict genotype in a Trinidadian killifish. Evolution 2017, 71, 2037–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Svanback, R.; Johansson, F. Predation selects for smaller eye size in a vertebrate: Effects of environmental conditions and sex. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2019, 286, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. McPhail, J.D. Ecology and evolution of sympatric sticklebacks (Gasterosteus) morphological and genetic evidence for a species pair in Enos Lake, British-Columbia. Can. J. Zool.-Rev. Can. Zool. 1984, 62, 1402–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hulsey, C.D.; Mims, M.C.; Streelman, J.T. Do constructional constraints influence cichlid craniofacial diversification? Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2007, 274, 1867–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Goatley, C.H.R.; Bellwood, D.R. Morphological structure in a reef fish assemblage. Coral Reefs 2009, 28, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Schmitz, L.; Wainwright, P.C. Ecomorphology of the eyes and skull in zooplanktivorous labrid fishes. Coral Reefs 2011, 30, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. McDowall, R.M. New Zealand Freshwater Fishes: A Guide and Natural History; Heinemann Reed: Aukland, Australia, 1990; p. 232. [Google Scholar]
  77. Modenutti, B.E.; Balseiro, E.G.; Cervellini, P.M. Effect of the selective feeding of Galaxias maculatus (Salmoniformes, Galaxiidae) on zooplankton of a South Andes lake. Aquat. Sci. 1993, 55, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ferriz, A. Alimentación del puyen Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns) en el río Limay, Provincia de Neuquén. Physica B 1984, 42, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  79. Vamosi, S.M. The presence of other fish species affects speciation in threespine sticklebacks. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2003, 5, 717–730. [Google Scholar]
  80. Knudsen, R.; Klemetsen, A.; Amundsen, P.A.; Hermansen, B. Incipient speciation through niche expansion: An example from the Arctic charr in a subarctic lake. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2006, 273, 2291–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Jonsson, B.; Jonsson, N. Polymorphism and speciation in Arctic charr. J. Fish Biol. 2001, 58, 605–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ostbye, K.; Amundsen, P.A.; Bernatchez, L.; Klemetsen, A.; Knudsen, R.; Kristoffersen, R.; Naesje, T.F.; Hindar, K. Parallel evolution of ecomorphological traits in the European whitefish Coregonus lavaretus (L.) species complex during postglacial times. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15, 3983–4001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Zimmerman, M.S.; Krueger, C.C.; Eshenroder, R.L. Morphological and ecological differences between shallow- and deep-water lake trout in Lake Mistassini, Quebec. J. Gt. Lakes Res. 2007, 33, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kautt, A.F.; Machado-Schiaffino, G.; Meyer, A. Lessons from a natural experiment: Allopatric morphological divergence and sympatric diversification in the Midas cichlid species complex are largely influenced by ecology in a deterministic way. Evol. Lett. 2018, 2, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. McGee, M.D.; Schluter, D.; Wainwright, P.C. Functional basis of ecological divergence in sympatric stickleback. BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 13, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Swanson, B.O.; Gibb, A.C.; Marks, J.C.; Hendrickson, D.A. Trophic polymorphism and behavioral differences decrease intraspecific competition in a cichlid, Herichthys minckleyi. Ecology 2003, 84, 1441–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Vanderpham, J.P.; Nakagawa, S.; Closs, G.P. Habitat-related patterns in phenotypic variation in a New Zealand freshwater generalist fish, and comparisons with a closely related specialist. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 58, 396–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Belk, M.C.; Habit, E.; Ortiz-Sandoval, J.J.; Sobenes, C.; Combs, E.A. Ecology of Galaxias platei in a depauperate lake. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 2014, 23, 615–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ruiz, V. Ictiofauna del Río Andalién (Concepción, Chile). Gayana 1993, 57, 109–278. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ferriz, R.A.; Aramburu, W.S. Relaciones troficas de los peces de un embalse patagónico, Provincia del Neuquén, Argentina. Bioikos 1994, 8, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
  91. Vega, R.; Dantagnan, P.; Mardones, A.; Valdebenito, I.; Zamorano, J.; Encina, F. Bases biológicas para el cultivo del puye Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns, 1842): Una revisión. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2013, 41, 369–386. [Google Scholar]
  92. Tagliaferro, M.; Arismendi, I.; Lancelotti, J.; Pascual, M. A natural experiment of dietary overlap between introduced Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and native Puyen (Galaxias maculatus) in the Santa Cruz River, Patagonia. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2015, 98, 1311–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hall, E.S.; Martin, B.E.; Brubaker, K.; Grant, C.J. Latitudinal variation in the geometric morphology of the largemouth bass. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2018, 69, 1480–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Recknagel, H.; Elmer, K.R.; Meyer, A. Crater lake habitat predicts morphological diversity in adaptive radiations of cichlid fishes. Evolution 2014, 68, 2145–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Diversity 12 00219 g001 550
Figure 1. Collection sites for the G. maculatus populations considered in this study. 1: Toltén River, 2: Queule River, 3: Lingue River, 4: Valdivia River, 5: Calafquen Lake, 6: Panguipulli Lake, 7: Riñihue Lake, 8: Neltume Lake, 9: Bueno River, 10: Contaco River, 11: Rupanco Lake, 12: Llanquihue Lake, 13: Maullín River, 14: Huillinco Lake, 15: Natri Lake, 16: Tarahuin Lake.
Figure 1. Collection sites for the G. maculatus populations considered in this study. 1: Toltén River, 2: Queule River, 3: Lingue River, 4: Valdivia River, 5: Calafquen Lake, 6: Panguipulli Lake, 7: Riñihue Lake, 8: Neltume Lake, 9: Bueno River, 10: Contaco River, 11: Rupanco Lake, 12: Llanquihue Lake, 13: Maullín River, 14: Huillinco Lake, 15: Natri Lake, 16: Tarahuin Lake.
Diversity 12 00219 g001
Diversity 12 00219 g002 550
Figure 2. Landmarks used in the analysis of the shape of the lateral body view of G. maculatus.
Figure 2. Landmarks used in the analysis of the shape of the lateral body view of G. maculatus.
Diversity 12 00219 g002
Diversity 12 00219 g003 550
Figure 3. Landmarks used in the analysis of the shape of the lateral head view of G. maculatus.
Figure 3. Landmarks used in the analysis of the shape of the lateral head view of G. maculatus.
Diversity 12 00219 g003
Diversity 12 00219 g004 550
Figure 4. Least squares means of body shape (error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean) of G. maculatus for river and lake populations on relative warps 1 and 2. Arrows represent ±1 SD for centroid size. Thin-plate spline figures represent visual shape variation at the extremes of relative warps 1 and 2. The head is to the left in the thin-plate spline representations.
Figure 4. Least squares means of body shape (error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean) of G. maculatus for river and lake populations on relative warps 1 and 2. Arrows represent ±1 SD for centroid size. Thin-plate spline figures represent visual shape variation at the extremes of relative warps 1 and 2. The head is to the left in the thin-plate spline representations.
Diversity 12 00219 g004
Diversity 12 00219 g005 550
Figure 5. Least squares means of head shape (error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean) of G. maculatus for river and lake populations on relative warps 1 and 2. Arrows represent ±1 SD for centroid size. Thin-plate spline figures represent visual shape variation at the extremes of relative warps 1 and 2.
Figure 5. Least squares means of head shape (error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the mean) of G. maculatus for river and lake populations on relative warps 1 and 2. Arrows represent ±1 SD for centroid size. Thin-plate spline figures represent visual shape variation at the extremes of relative warps 1 and 2.
Diversity 12 00219 g005
Table
Table 1. Multivariate analysis of covariance effects for body shape and head shape.
Table 1. Multivariate analysis of covariance effects for body shape and head shape.
SourceDegrees of FreedomF-Valuep-Value
Body shape
River/Lake (RL)1, 13753.000.0834
Index8, 172614.96<0.0001
Centroid size (CS)1, 166543.38<0.0001
CS*Index8, 172615.19<0.0001
River/Lake*Index8, 17267.01<0.0001
CS*RL*Index9, 17105.78<0.0001
Head shape
River/Lake (RL)1, 105510.350.0013
Index8, 68449.47<0.0001
Centroid Size (CS)1, 1055186.08<0.0001
CS*Index8, 68449.28<0.0001
RL*Index8, 6847.42<0.0001
CS*RL*Index9, 6756.44<0.0001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mercer, M.; Searle, P.C.; Cifuentes, R.; Habit, E.; Belk, M.C. Morphometric Response of Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns) to Lake Colonization in Chile. Diversity 2020, 12, 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12060219

AMA Style

Mercer M, Searle PC, Cifuentes R, Habit E, Belk MC. Morphometric Response of Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns) to Lake Colonization in Chile. Diversity. 2020; 12(6):219. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12060219

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mercer, Margaret, Peter C. Searle, Roberto Cifuentes, Evelyn Habit, and Mark C. Belk. 2020. "Morphometric Response of Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns) to Lake Colonization in Chile" Diversity 12, no. 6: 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12060219

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop