Next Article in Journal
Effects of Trimethylamine Concentrations in Hatching Eggs on Chick Quality in Dwarf Hens
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Andrographolide-Loaded Nanostructured Lipid Carriers on Growth, Feed Efficiency, and Resistance to Streptococcus agalactiae in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Uncovering Sexual Differences in the External Morphology, Appendicular Muscles, and Internal Organs of a Fossorial Narrow-Mouth Frog (Kaloula borealis)

1
College of Life Sciences, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China
2
Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610213, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(14), 2118; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15142118
Submission received: 9 June 2025 / Revised: 12 July 2025 / Accepted: 15 July 2025 / Published: 17 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Herpetology)

Simple Summary

We investigated the sexual differences in the external morphological characteristics, appendicular muscle mass, and internal organ mass of Kaloula borealis during the breeding season. The snout-vent length and eye diameter were significantly larger in females than in males. Males exhibited significantly greater head width and thigh width than females. The dry mass of ten appendicular muscles showed significant differences between the sexes. In addition, males had significantly heavier hearts and lungs compared to females. This study presents the detail and comprehensive analyses of sexual dimorphism in a fossorial anuran species, enhancing our better understanding of the anuran reproductive strategies.

Abstract

Sexual dimorphism is prevalent among animals, influencing both functional morphological traits and behavioral performances. In this study, we investigated the sexual differences in the morphological parameters of Kaloula borealis (Anura, Microhylidae) during the breeding season using 48 specimens. Our results reveal that among the 16 external morphological traits, females had significantly larger snout-vent length and eye diameter than males. The former presumably contributes to enhancing fertility, while the latter is associated with larger body size. Males exhibited significantly greater head width and thigh width than females, which may be related to accessing a wider range of food sources and enhancing their locomotor ability, respectively. Among the 32 appendicular muscles, 10 displayed significant sexual dimorphism in dry mass, suggesting divergent reproductive strategies between the sexes. Among the eight internal organs analyzed, males possessed significantly heavier hearts and lungs than females, which is likely an adaptation to higher metabolic demands and calling behavior. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that sex-specific differences in external morphology, muscle mass, and internal organ mass reflect distinct ecological and reproductive adaptations between males and females and contribute to the phenotypic diversities in Anura.

1. Introduction

Sexual dimorphism, the phenotypic differences between males and females of the same species, is prevalent in animals [1]. Selection acting on sexually dimorphic traits can affect both functional morphological traits and behavioral performances, playing a crucial role in understanding patterns and processes at micro- and macroevolutionary scales [2,3,4]. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the ecological and evolutionary origins of sexual dimorphism. Empirical studies and life history theory classify these into three non-mutually exclusive selective mechanisms, namely, the sexual selection hypothesis, the fecundity selection hypothesis, and the niche divergence hypothesis [5]. Notably, the interplay between competition and mate choice in sexual selection drives the rapid and pronounced evolution of sexually dimorphic traits [6]. Sexual selection theory suggests that sexual phenotypic differences promote the evolution of morphology and behavior to enhance reproductive success, including resource control, intrasexual competition, and social dominance [7,8,9]. Fecundity selection emphasizes sex-specific energy allocation toward reproduction [10]. The niche divergence hypothesis proposes that dimorphism may evolve to reduce intersexual competition for resources [11].
Morphometry is a useful tool to determine species diversity by measuring the morphological traits, and to provide insights into reproductive strategy, fitness optimization, and ecological adaptation [12,13]. A prominent example is sexual size dimorphism in anurans, with adult females being significantly larger than males in most studied species [14,15,16]. The larger body size of females can be explained by fecundity selection. This is because larger body size correlates with increased abdominal cavity volume, enabling more or larger eggs, and consequently enhancing reproductive output [17]. Studies have shown a significant positive relationship between functional muscle mass and reproductive success in both sexes [18]. When adjusted for body size, males typically exhibit more developed appendicular muscles. Functionally, the heavier forelimb muscles provide greater strength to grip females more tightly and to prevent being displaced by other males, thereby improving mating success [19]. Beyond fundamental locomotion, like swimming and jumping, hindlimb muscles play a critical role in competitive behaviors, such as kicking and defensive maneuvers, with well-developed musculature conferring reproductive advantages. To date, research on sexual dimorphism in external morphology and appendicular musculature has been focused on semi-aquatic [20,21,22,23], terrestrial [24,25,26], and arboreal anuran species [27].
Selective pressures can also drive sexual dimorphism in internal organs [28]. Organ size variation is closely related to the storage and metabolism of energy [29], making the study of sex-specific differences in organ mass crucial for understanding functional dimorphism, and evolutionary adaptations in internal anatomy [30]. Current quantitative research on internal organ dimorphism mostly concentrates on function changes across geographical locations, environmental gradients or seasonal variations [29], development and differentiation [31], and morphology and histology [32,33]. However, sex-specific variations in organ mass during the reproductive period remain poorly studied.
Kaloula borealis (Barbour, 1908) [34] (Anura: Microhylidae) is a fossorial species that uses its hindlimbs for digging. It is distributed in northern China and the temperate region of Korea, with its type locality in Dandong City, Liaoning Province, China [34]. This species is an explosive breeder with axillary amplexus, and its reproductive period occurs from July to August. Currently, studies have been conducted on different regions of its distribution range. There are differences in the growth rate between males and females [35]. In addition, research on K. borealis has focused on comprehensive osteological examinations [36], distribution and biological characteristics [37], genetic analysis [38], age structure [39], and ecology and habitat restoration [40]. We speculate that this explosive breeder exhibits significant sexual dimorphism, with males possessing more developed appendages and internal organs to adapt to amplexus, calls, and other reproductive behaviors. In this study, we will comprehensively investigate the sexual differences in external morphological traits, appendicular muscle mass, and internal organ mass of K. borealis collected in the type locality during the breeding season. Our findings will provide novel insights into its behavioral, physiological, and reproductive strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

A total of 48 specimens (24 males and 24 females) were randomly collected in July 2024 from Gushan Town, Dandong City, Liaoning Province, China (39°55′39.23″ N, 123°34′08.74″ E, 31.29 m). The females were determined by visible oocytes through the skin of the abdomen, while the males were identified by the external subgular vocal sac, two linea musculina, and thickened ventral glands [41] (Figure 1). Each individual was weighed using an electronic balance (GasonGS-100, Shenzhen, China) to the nearest 0.1 g. They were promptly taken to the laboratory and sacrificed with 2% MS-222 (concentrated tricaine methanesulphonate).

2.2. 3D Reconstruction

To better visualize and present the studied muscles and internal organs, one male (D20240723011) and one female (D20240723001) were stained in 2% potassium iodide solution for 7–10 days to facilitate tissue contrast enhancement [42,43]. Subsequently, these specimens were wrapped in plastic wrap and scanned in a micro-CT scanner (Micro-CT, PerkinElmer®, Waltham, MA, USA); the scanning parameters were set as follows: high-precision scanning mode, voltage of 220 V, current of 60 mA, 14 min. Mimics 21.0 (Materialise HQ Technologielaan, Leuven, Belgium) modeling software was used to extract and transform the original model and complete the 3D reconstruction (Figure 2).

2.3. External Morphological Characteristics

In total, 16 functional morphological characteristics were measured using a digital calliper (DEGUQMNT MNT-200, Shanghai, China) to the nearest 0.01 mm. Among them, the snout-vent length (SVL) and body mass (BM) are linked to morphology, physiology, functional ecology, and life history [44]. The head length (HL) and head width (HW) are associated with biological characteristics, such as food preference, and combat behavior [45]. The eye diameter (ED) is related to vision [46]. The upper arm length (UAL), upper arm width (UAW), lower arm and hand length (LAHL), lower arm width (LAD), thigh length (THIL), thigh width (THIW), tibia length (TL), tibia width (TW), tarsal length (TARL), tarsal width (TARW), and foot length (FL) are indicative of locomotor performance [47]. The terminology, abbreviations, and measurements followed those of Fei et al. (2009) and Watters et al. (2016) [41,48].

2.4. Appendicular Muscle Mass

For each specimen, we dissected 32 muscles from the right forelimb, pectoral girdle, abdomen, and hindlimb. These muscles were categorized into 12 functional groups based on the literature (Table 1). Each dissected muscle was placed in a labeled centrifuge tube and dried at a constant temperature in a drying thermostat oven (Shanghai Qixin Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) at 60 °C for 48 h until the mass was constant enough to remove moisture. The dried muscle samples were then weighed using an electronic balance with the nearest to 0.1 mg [49].

2.5. Internal Organ Mass

Eight internal organs, including the heart (HE), liver (LI), spleen (SP), lung (LU), kidney (KI), corpus adiposum (COAD), testis (TE), and digestive tract (DI), were dissected. These organs were dried at 60 °C at a constant temperature in the same thermostat oven for 48 h until the constant mass was achieved. The dried organ samples were then weighed using an electronic balance to the nearest 0.1 mg. The nomenclature of each organ followed the published literature [60].

2.6. Statistical Analyses

First, to meet assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances, all variables (i.e., external morphological characteristics, muscle mass, and internal organ mass) were log10 transformed. Second, to assess sexual dimorphism in functional traits, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the snout-vent length and body mass between the sexes. Age may influence morphological characteristics, but there is a high correlation between age and body size in anuran species [61,62]. To reduce the age and body size impact, we performed analysis of covariance for the other variables in IBM SPSS Statistics 28 [63], with SVL as a covariate, sex as the fixed factor, and the remaining variates as dependent variables. Third, to examine sex-based morphological differentiation, we performed principal component analysis (PCA) using the “stats” package version 4.4.1 [64], and visualized results using the “ggplot2” package version 3.5.1 in R software version 4.3.2 [65]. Finally, to examine how SVL influences functional trait variation in K. borealis, we conducted allometric analyses via linear regression using Origin 2024, modeling significant sexual traits against SVL.

3. Results

3.1. Results of Statistical Analysis

3.1.1. External Morphological Comparisons (Table 2)

Females exhibited significantly greater SVL (1.63 ± 0.04 mm vs. 1.61 ± 0.02 mm; p < 0.01) and eye diameter (0.53 ± 0.04 mm vs. 0.49 ± 0.05; p < 0.05) than males. In contrast, males showed greater head width (1.10 ± 0.03 mm vs. 1.09 ± 0.03 mm; p < 0.05) and thigh width (0.59 ± 0.04 mm vs. 0.58 ± 0.05 mm; p < 0.05) than females. No significant differences were detected in the remaining 12 traits.
Table 2. Sexual differences in external morphological traits of Kaloula borealis.
Table 2. Sexual differences in external morphological traits of Kaloula borealis.
External Morphological CharacteristicsMean ± Standard Deviation R2Fp
MalesFemales
Independent sample t-test
1. Snout-vent length1.61 ± 0.021.63 ± 0.04/9.2660.03
2. Body mass0.80 ± 0.060.83 ± 0.11/7.0390.12
Covariance analysis
3. Head length0.95 ± 0.030.96 ± 0.04<0.0010.1890.67
4. Head width1.10 ± 0.031.09 ± 0.030.0034.6970.04
5. Eye diameter0.49 ± 0.050.53 ± 0.040.0094.0910.05
6. Upper arm length0.96 ± 0.030.97 ± 0.03<0.0010.3210.57
7. Upper arm width0.42 ± 0.060.41 ± 0.060.0041.4340.24
8. Lower arm width0.33 ± 0.050.32 ± 0.050.0052.4000.13
9. Lower arm and hand length1.27 ± 0.021.37 ± 0.390.1742.2110.14
10. Thigh width0.59 ± 0.040.58 ± 0.050.0106.4700.01
11. Tibia length1.08 ± 0.031.09 ± 0.03<0.0010.7310.40
12. Tibia width0.49 ± 0.050.50 ± 0.06<0.0010.0330.86
13. Tarsal length0.86 ± 0.030.87 ± 0.04<0.0010.0090.93
14. Tarsal width0.42 ± 0.030.44 ± 0.02<0.0010.3550.56
15. Foot length1.21 ± 0.021.20 ± 0.030.0013.8650.06
16. Thigh length1.18 ± 0.031.19 ± 0.03<0.0010.2490.62
Note: All in mm, except body mass in g. Levels of significance p less than 0.05 reported in bold. / indicates that the independent sample t-test analysis did not produce R2 data.

3.1.2. Appendicular Muscle Mass Comparisons (Table 3)

Among the forelimb, abdomen, and pectoral girdle muscles, five of sixteen muscles exhibited sexually dimorphic dry mass (p < 0.05). Specifically, males showed significantly greater mass in four muscles: the musculus rectus abdominis, obliquus abdominis internus, anconaeus, and obliquus abdominis externus. Conversely, females demonstrated significantly higher mass in the flexor digitorum communis.
For the hindlimb muscles, five of sixteen muscles displayed significant sexual dimorphism (p < 0.05). Specifically, biceps femoris, gracilis major, semimembranosus, semitendinosus, and tibialis posticus were significantly greater in males than in females.
Table 3. Covariance analysis of sexual differences in the dry appendicular muscle mass of Kaloula borealis.
Table 3. Covariance analysis of sexual differences in the dry appendicular muscle mass of Kaloula borealis.
Appendicular MusclesMean ± Standard Deviation of Dry Mass (mg)R2Fp
MalesFemales
Pectoral girdle muscles
1. Coracobrachialis longus0.03 ± 0.210.06 ± 0.130.0010.0250.88
2. Coracobrachialis brevis0.20 ± 0.170.19 ± 0.130.0090.4410.51
3. Deltoideus scapularis0.51 ± 0.090.52 ± 0.120.0163.3160.08
4. Pectoralis0.37 ± 0.120.40 ± 0.140.0100.0890.77
5. Pectoralis abdominis, lateral portion0.39 ± 0.090.42 ± 0.110.0020.3840.54
6. Coracoradialis0.27 ± 0.090.26 ± 0.110.0222.5880.12
Forelimb muscles
1. Flexor carpi radialis0.02 ± 0.22−0.03 ± 0.290.0691.0650.31
2. Flexor digitorum communis0.03 ± 0.130.14 ± 0.110.0876.1220.02
3. Anconaeus0.19 ± 0.150.06 ± 0.160.31416.1370.01
4. Extensor carpi radialis0.17 ± 0.170.11 ± 0.110.0623.2800.08
5. Extensor carpi ulnaris0.03 ± 0.150.12 ± 0.160.0140.7820.38
6. Triceps brachii0.76 ± 0.090.81 ± 0.12<0.0010.0050.95
7. Flexor carpi ulnaris0.00 ± 0.120.07 ± 0.160.0070.4010.53
Abdominal muscles
1. Musculus rectus abdominis0.82 ± 0.130.69 ± 0.100.26029.4580.01
2. Obliquus abdominis externus1.59 ± 0.110.90 ± 0.165.170676.2500.01
3. Obliquus abdominis internus1.62 ± 0.241.02 ± 0.134.327145.6630.01
Hindlimb muscles
1. Biceps femoris0.27 ± 0.120.21 ± 0.140.1037.3050.01
2. Triceps femoris1.33 ± 0.071.36 ± 0.110.0020.6610.42
3. Adductor longus0.46 ± 0.090.52 ± 0.150.0050.3960.53
4. Sartorius0.26 ± 0.140.27 ± 0.130.0050.3080.58
5. Adductor magnus0.98 ± 0.080.99 ± 0.130.0112.2880.14
6. Gracilis major0.84 ± 0.070.83 ± 0.090.0298.3960.01
7. Gracilis minor0.46 ± 0.110.44 ± 0.190.0482.54750.12
8. Semimembranosus0.59 ± 0.090.56 ± 0.110.0538.7960.01
9. Semitendinosus0.64 ± 0.070.63 ± 0.110.0214.9430.03
10. Piriformis0.07 ± 0.110.09 ± 0.19<0.0010.0070.93
11. Iliopsoas0.30 ± 0.120.27 ± 0.190.0754.0080.05
12. Tibialis anticus longus0.79 ± 0.080.81 ± 0.120.0071.3840.25
13. Tastrocnemius0.87 ± 0.140.90 ± 0.09<0.0010.0220.88
14. Peroneus0.54 ± 0.090.58 ± 0.10<0.0010.0050.95
15. Extensor cruris0.03 ± 0.090.06 ± 0.11<0.0010.0080.93
16. Tibialis posticus0.05 ± 0.090.01 ± 0.160.0797.3990.01
Note: Levels of significance p less than 0.05 reported in bold.

3.1.3. Internal Organ Mass Comparisons (Table 4)

Regarding the dry mass of the internal organs, the heart and lung of males were significantly greater than those of females (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Covariance analysis of sexual differences in the dry internal organ mass of Kaloula borealis.
Table 4. Covariance analysis of sexual differences in the dry internal organ mass of Kaloula borealis.
Mean ± Standard Deviation of Dry Mass (mg)R2Fp
MalesFemales
1. Heart1.25 ± 0.151.22 ± 0.210.1126.7780.01
2. Liver1.58 ± 0.151.64 ± 0.290.0150.5340.47
3. Spleen−0.61 ± 0.35−0.77 ± 0.290.3863.9340.06
4. Lung1.11 ± 0.091.04 ± 0.110.13824.9520.01
5. Kidney0.89 ± 0.060.94 ± 0.140.0020.1690.68
6. Digestive tract1.67 ± 0.101.71 ± 0.140.0010.0720.80
7. Corpus adiposum0.37 ± 0.650.24 ± 0.900.6501.1400.29
8. Vesica fellea−0.39 ± 0.51−0.49 ± 0.340.1540.7800.38
Note: Levels of significance p less than 0.05 reported in bold.

3.2. Results of Principal Component Analysis (Table 5; Figure 3)

The PCA results of the external morphological characteristics reveal that the first six principal components collectively explained 72.30% of the total variance. PC1 and PC2 were the primary sources of variation, though neither showed clear sexual distinction. PC1 explained 20.87% of the variance and was primarily associated with size-related variation, with the highest loadings from tibia width (TW, 0.82) and tarsal width (TARW, 0.86). PC2 accounted for 14.33% of the variance and was mainly related to locomotor-related traits, with the highest loading from thigh length (THIL, 0.81). PC3–PC6 revealed independent differentiation in foot and head structures, but their contributions were relatively low, likely due to the overall morphological similarity between male and female individuals (Figure 3a).
The PCA results of the forelimb, abdomen, and pectoral girdle muscles show that the first four principal components collectively explained 67.88% of the total variance. PC1 (34.64%) highlighted strong associations with mating-related adaptations, showing the highest loadings on the pectoralis abdominis lateral portion (PALP, 0.82) and deltoideus scapularis (DS, 0.81). PC2 (18.09%) was primarily associated with respiratory function dominated by abdominal muscles (OAE, 0.85; OAI, 0.85). Notably, obvious sexual dimorphism was observed along both the PC1 and PC2 axes. PC3 and PC4 explained only 16.10% of the total variation combined (Figure 3b). Regarding the hindlimb muscles, the first three principal components explained 71.07% of the variance. PC1 (51.51%) reflected overall hindlimb strength and stability, with the highest loadings on the tibialis anticus longus (TAL, 0.93), adductor magnus (AM, 0.91), and semitendinosus (SET, 0.91). PC2 (12.45%) revealed distinct locomotor patterns through opposing loadings on the tibialis posticus (TF, 0.86) and biceps femoris (BF, −0.81), with these muscles primarily driving variation along this axis. PC3 (7.11%) was weakly associated with iliopsoas (IL, 0.68), potentially reflecting hip joint mobility (Figure 3c).
The PCA results of the internal organs, the first three principal components collectively explain 72.79% of the variance. PC1 (41.29%) reflected the metabolic functions of organs, with the highest loadings from the liver (LI, 0.82) and kidney (KI, 0.91). PC2 (16.28%) was correlated with circulatory function, with highest loading from the heart (HE, −0.67). There was no obvious sexual distinction between the PC1 and PC2 axes. PC3 (15.23%) was associated with digestive functions, with the highest loading from the digestive tract (DI, 0.72) (Figure 3d).

3.3. Results of Allometric Analysis for Significantly Sexual Different Traits (Figure 4)

For the external morphological characteristics, both the head width and thigh width were significantly correlated with the snout-vent length (p < 0.05) (Figure 4a,b). However, there was no significant correlation between the eye diameter and snout-vent length (p > 0.05) (Figure 4c).
For the five forelimb and abdominal muscles, the allometric results show that only the flexor digitorum communis in males showed no significant correlation with snout-vent length (p > 0.05; Figure 4d–h). For the five hindlimb muscles, the allometric results show that only the mass of biceps femoris in males showed no significant correlation with snout-vent length (p > 0.05) (Figure 4i–m).
For the internal organs, the mass of lung and heart were strongly and significantly correlated with snout-vent length in both females and males (p < 0.05) (Figure 4n–o).

4. Discussion

4.1. Sexual Dimorphism in the External Morphological Characteristics

Body size is a fundamental trait that influences virtually all aspects of an organism’s physiology, life history, resource use, and ecological strategy [66]. The degree of body size dimorphism can be modulated by multiple biological factors, including fecundity, reproductive strategies, and growth trajectories [67]. K. borealis exhibits female-biased size dimorphism, which may increase the abdominal cavity volume, accommodate more eggs, and boost reproductive output [41].
Vertebrate head size is associated with various biological functions, such as bite force [68], calling behavior [66], and combat [69]. The sexual dimorphism in head morphology could reflect divergent feeding strategies and niche partitioning [70]. Compared to the females, male K. borealis possess a significantly broader head, which may improve prey manipulation efficiency and facilitate ingestion of larger arthropods to meet the energetical demands of male reproductive behaviors (e.g., prolonged calling) [71,72]. In addition, the food niche differentiation effectively reduces intraspecific competition [73]. Huang et al. (2019) [74] reported that body size is the strongest predictor of eye size, with larger animals typically having absolutely larger eyes compared to smaller animals. In this study, the larger eye diameter observed in females is consistent with their report.
Robust hindlimbs can enhance power output during locomotion [75]. Therefore, we hypothesize that the significantly wider thigh in male K. borealis may generate forceful kicking maneuvers during intrasexual contests, facilitating mating. These functional advantages align with the sexual dimorphism in hindlimb muscle mass.

4.2. Sexual Dimorphism in the Appendicular Muscle Mass

Skeletal muscle is a critical component of the motor system and plays a vital role in the survival and reproduction of anurans [76]. Reproductive activities exert significant selective pressure on the appendicular muscle morphology, driving adaptive divergence between sexes [77]. Among the studied 13 forelimb and pectoral girdle muscle mass, the anconaeus and flexor digitorum communis show significant sexual differences. Specifically, the flexor digitorum communis acts as the carpus flexor and provides substantial force to support body weight. In K. borealis, the females, with significantly heavier flexor digitorum communis, may adapt to carry males during amplexus, enhancing female endurance throughout the prolonged carrying process and ensuring successful fertilization [78]. The heavier anconaeus stores more kinetic energy, which can improve shock absorption upon landing, and enhances mechanical support for body stabilization [79]. We therefore hypothesize that the males possess more developed elbow muscles, which could enable them to withstand competitive impacts from rivals and to grasp females more tightly during amplexus [80].
The abdominal muscles functionally support the abdominal cavity and participate in respiratory and calling behaviors [52]. In K. borealis, significant sexual dimorphism occurs in the mass of musculus rectus abdominis, obliquus abdominis externus, and obliquus abdominis internus. We propose that males have more developed muscles, enabling them to exhibit strong contractility and adapt to the intense calling behavior required during prolonged breeding periods.
Among the 16 hindlimb muscles examined, five exhibit significant sexual dimorphism. Specifically, males possess significantly heavier gracilis major, biceps femoris, semimembranosus, and semitendinosus. These muscles are functionally associated with knee flexion, which likely facilitate males to make powerful kicking movements, to prevent being taken over during male–male combat [49]. Furthermore, the tibialis posticus aids male foot extension and can lift the inner metatarsal tubercle [60], which is relevant to hindlimb digging [81]. The study of the muscular anatomy of K. borealis also enhances our understanding of the relationship between the form and function of vertebrates.
Emerging evidence indicates that sexual dimorphism in vertebrate musculature may arise through a testosterone-mediated multilevel regulatory network. Testosterone directly promotes muscle development by inducing muscle cell hypertrophy, particularly in male vertebrates during breeding seasons [82]. Studies on neotropical poison frogs demonstrate that males with elevated testosterone levels exhibit enhanced muscle mass, competitive capacity, and courtship vocalization intensity [83]. Notably, these phenotypic divergences are sustained not only by hormonal regulation but also through sex-specific gene expression. For example, differentially expressed genes and metabolites in the flexor carpi radialis of Bufo gargarizans form an epigenetic regulatory network [77], which reprograms substrate metabolism pathways. In the near future, we will investigate the underlying physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms driving these sex-specific muscle adaptations in K. borealis.

4.3. Sexual Differences in the Internal Organs

Significant sexual dimorphism is observed in the mass of the heart and lung, with both organs larger in males. The heart exhibits distinct morphological and functional adaptations, including ecological demands, reproductive strategies, and energy expenditure during mating behaviors. Additional factors, such as sex, body temperature, and sexual maturity also exert considerable influence on cardiac size [84]. Compared to females, male K. borealis possess substantially heavier hearts, a phenomenon hypothesized to correlate with the demands of high-intensity reproductive behaviors (e.g., vocalization). During the breeding season, the courtship behaviors of males require sustained energy expenditure and elevated blood oxygen levels, reinforcing the necessity for cardiac enlargement [85].
The observed sexual dimorphism in lung mass similarly reflects divergent reproductive strategies. The lung, as the primary respiratory organ, correlates closely with individual activity levels [86]. Male K. borealis have significantly greater lung mass than females, corresponding to their heightened respiratory needs during the breeding season [85]. It is hypothesized that at the time of sampling, the females had already completed their energetic investment in oogenesis, whereas the males had entered a phase of intense reproductive activities, requiring increased respiratory efficiency to sustain behaviors, such as vocalization. Elevated oxygen demands from these activities may drive further lung development in males [87]. This dimorphism reflects a fundamental energy allocation trade-off between the sexes. Males invest in enhancing their cardiopulmonary capacity to support the high energy demands of courtship behaviors (e.g., calling, competition), while females prioritize energy allocation to gamete production and ovarian development to maximize direct reproductive output [88].
In addition, age [35], growth rate [89], and fluctuating asymmetry [90] have been reported to influence sexual dimorphism; for instance, females tend to choose males with higher symmetry. Furthermore, pathogens may affect morphological deviations in size and weight indicators of traits, and infection may lead to differences in survival and reproductive success rates between sexes by intensifying physiological stress, expanding immune responses, etc. [91]. Future research should further explore the influence of these factors on anuran sexual dimorphism.

5. Conclusions

This study provides the first comprehensive analyses of sexual dimorphism in a fossorial anuran species, K. borealis. The results confirm the previous prediction that this species exhibits significant sexual dimorphism in its external morphological features (i.e., SVL, eye diameter, head width, thigh width), appendicular muscle mass (i.e., flexor digitorum communis, anconaeus, musculus rectus abdominis, obliquus abdominis externus, obliquus abdominis internus, biceps femoris, gracilis major, semimembranosus, semitendinosus, tibialis posticus), and internal organ mass (i.e., heart and lung). This phenotypic differentiation is jointly driven by sexual selection, fecundity selection, and niche differentiation, reflecting adaptive changes in male and female individuals in response to reproductive investment and competition. This study contributes to enhancing our understanding of the reproductive strategies, as well as relationship between the form and function of anurans. This study also provides a valuable basis for future investigations into the underlying physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms driving the sex-specific morphological adaptations. Future research needs to further consider the impact of other factors, such as age structure, pathogens, morphological deviations, and asymmetry on sexual dimorphism.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.W., M.Z. and B.D.; methodology, X.W. and M.Z.; validation, M.Z.; formal analysis, X.W. and M.Z.; investigation, X.W., W.Z. and B.D.; resources, M.Z.; data curation, X.W. and W.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, X.W.; writing—review and editing, X.W., M.Z., W.Z., J.J. and B.D.; visualization, X.W. and W.Z.; supervision, M.Z. and B.D.; project administration, J.J.; funding acquisition, B.D. and M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Liaoning Provincial Forestry and Grassland Administration (Wildlife Resources Survey and Documentation Project of Liaoning Province), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32200378).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This animal study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CIBDWLL2021027, approved on 1 January 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data used in this study can be made available upon request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cordeschi, G.; Canestrelli, D.; Porretta, D. Sex-biased phenotypic plasticity affects sexual dimorphism patterns under changing environmental conditions. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dursun, C.; Gül, S.; Özdemir, N. Sexual size and shape dimorphism in Turkish common toads (Bufo bufo Linnaeus 1758). Anat. Rec. 2022, 305, 1548–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Juarez, B.H.; Moen, D.S.; Adams, D.C. Ecology, sexual dimorphism, and jumping evolution in anurans. J. Evol. Biol. 2023, 36, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Head, A.; Vaughn, P.L.; Livingston, E.H.; Colwell, C.; Muñoz, M.M.; Gangloff, E.J. Include the females: Morphology–performance relationships vary between sexes in lizards. J. Exp. Biol. 2024, 227, jeb248014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fairbairn, D.J.; Blanckenhorn, W.U.; Székely, T. Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kelley, D.B. Sexually dimorphic behaviors. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 1988, 11, 225–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Andersson, M. Sexual Selection; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994; Volume 72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hosken, D.J.; House, C.M. Sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21, R62–R65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shuker, D.M.; Kvarnemo, C. The definition of sexual selection. Behav. Ecol. 2021, 32, 781–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pincheira-Donoso, D.; Hunt, J. Fecundity selection theory: Concepts and evidence. Biol. Rev. 2017, 92, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. De Lisle, S. Understanding the evolution of ecological sex differences: Integrating character displacement and the Darwin-Bateman paradigm. Evol. Lett. 2019, 3, 434–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Priambodo, B.; Hamidy, A.; Kurniawan, N. Morphological characters review on white-lipped frog (Chalcorana chalconota; Schelgel, 1837) based on morphometrical analysis, within the population of Java. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; p. 012037. [Google Scholar]
  13. Englmaier, G.K.; Antonov, A.; Weiss, S.J. General patterns of sexual dimorphism in graylings (Thymallus), with a comparison to other salmonid species. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 2022, 32, 645–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shine, R. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. Copeia 1979, 1979, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xu, M.; Wang, G.; Liu, P.; He, Z.; He, K.; Cheng, Z.; Wang, Z.; Chen, W.; Li, Z.; Zhang, L. Age structure and body size of two Tibetan toad (Bufo tibetanus) populations from different elevations in China. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 14, e11559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Monnet, J.M.; Cherry, M.I. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 2002, 269, 2301–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Silva, N.R.; Berneck, B.V.; da Silva, H.R.; Haddad, C.F.; Zamudio, K.R.; Mott, T.; Nali, R.C.; Prado, C.P. Egg-laying site, fecundity and degree of sexual size dimorphism in frogs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2020, 131, 600–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, L.; Yuan, X.; Sheng, Y.; Yu, F.; Zhong, X.; Chen, X.; Rao, D. Strong limb tactics of the Boulenger’s Lazy Toad, Scutiger boulengeri: Inferred from limb muscles. Asian Herpetol. Res. 2020, 11, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yekta, N.; Blackburn, D.G. Sexual dimorphism in mass and protein content of the forelimb muscles of the northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens. Can. J. Zool. 1992, 70, 670–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, W.; Wu, Q.G.; Su, Z.X.; Lu, X. Age, body size and clutch size of Rana kunyuensis, a subtropical frog native to China. Herpetol. J. 2012, 22, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liao, W.B.; Wu, Q.G.; Barrett, K. Evolution of sexual dimorphism in the forelimb muscles of Andrew’s toad (Bufo andrewsi) in response to putative sexual selection. Anim. Biol. 2012, 62, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lambert, M.R.; Stoler, A.B.; Smylie, M.S.; Relyea, R.A.; Skelly, D.K. Interactive effects of road salt and leaf litter on wood frog sex ratios and sexual size dimorphism. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2017, 74, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, L.; Sheng, Y.; Yuan, X.; Yu, F.; Zhong, X.; Chen, X. Sexual dimorphism in Scutiger boulengeri, an endemic toad from the Tibetan Plateau. Anim. Biol. 2020, 70, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Caldart, V.M.; Loebens, L.; Brum, A.J.C.; Bataioli, L.; Cechin, S.Z. Reproductive cycle, size and age at sexual maturity, and sexual dimorphism in the stream-breeding frog Crossodactylus schmidti (Hylodidae). S. Am. J. Herpetol. 2019, 14, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pacheco, E.O.; Ceron, K.; Akieda, P.S.; Santana, D.J. Diet and morphometry of two poison frog species (Anura, Dendrobatidae) from the plateaus surrounding the Pantanal of Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna. Environ. 2021, 56, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Araspin, L.; Measey, J.; Herrel, A. Does aquatic performance predict terrestrial performance: A case study with an aquatic frog, Xenopus laevis. J. Exp. Biol. 2023, 226, jeb246545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Garcia-Pelagio, K.P.; Gutiérrez, B.M.; Hernández, D.P.; Calva, N.P.; Segura-Alegria, B.; Ochoa-Ochoa, L.M. Locomotion and biomechanical adaptations in hind limb muscles of three Mexican anuran species. S. Am. J. Herpetol. 2023, 26, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Casselman, S.; Schulte-Hostedde, A. Reproductive roles predict sexual dimorphism in internal and external morphology of lake whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis. Ecol. Freshw. Fish. 2004, 13, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Deng, W.; Jin, L.; Qiu, D.; Yan, C.; Liao, W. Geographic variation in organ size in a toad (Duttaphrynus melanostictus). Animals 2023, 13, 2645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gou, J.; Xiong, J.; Dong, B.; Liu, Z.; Hou, M. Sexual dimorphism of internal organ mass in Bufo gargarizans gargarizans from summer population. Liver 2017, 3, 1543–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roco, Á.S.; Ruiz-García, A.; Bullejos, M. Testis development and differentiation in amphibians. Genes 2021, 12, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fanali, L.Z. Alterações Morfofuncionais nos Melanomacrófagos Hepáticos de Peixes e Anfíbios Induzidas pelo Contaminante Benzo [a] Pireno. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Soares, E.T.T. Comparative Histological and Anatomical Biomarkers of the Spleen and Kidneys in Amphibians: A Special Focus on Rhinella icterica. Master’s Thesis, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Sorocaba, Brazil, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  34. Barbour, T. Some New Reptiles and Amphibians. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 1908, 51, 315–325. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ko, S.B.; Ko, Y.M.; Lee, J.H. Ecology, Body size and age structure of mating couples in boreal digging frog (Kaloula borealis). Korean J. Environ. 2014, 28, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, M.H.; Chen, X.H.; Ye, C.Y.; Fei, L.; Li, P.P.; Jiang, J.P.; Wang, B. Osteology of the Asian narrow-mouth toad Kaloula borealis (Amphibia, Anura, Microhylidae) with comments on its osteological adaptation to fossorial life. Acta. Zool. 2020, 101, 366–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. An, C.K.; Hong, S.G.; Na, S.; Doh, J.; Oh, K.C.; Yi, H. Comparison Study of the Snout-vent Length (SVL) and the Biomass for the Climate Change Sensitive Species, Narrow-mouthed Toads (Kaloula borealis, Endangered Species II), at the three different areas (Seoul, Nonsan, Busan) of South Korea. J. Wetlands Res. Vol. 2020, 22, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Othman, S.N.; Putri, E.T.; Messenger, K.R.; Bae, Y.; Yang, Y.; Bova, T.; Reed, T.; Amin, H.; Chuang, M.F.; Jang, Y. Impact of the Miocene orogenesis on Kaloula spp. radiation and implication of local refugia on genetic diversification. Integr. Zool. 2022, 17, 261–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Rahman, M.M.; Lee, Y.Y.; Park, S.M.; Ham, C.H.; Sung, H.C. Confirmation of the applicability of skeletochronology and estimating the age Structure of Kaloula borealis (Microhylidae: Anura) at Lake Sihwa, South Korea. Biology 2022, 11, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Choi, M.H.; Bae, Y.S. Monitoring the Alternative Habitat of Kaloula Borealis and Analysis on Meteorological Factors in Pyeongtaek. J. Life Sci. 2024, 34, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fei, L.; Hu, S.Q.; Ye, C.Y.; Huang, Y.Z. Amphibia, Anura Ranidae. In Fauna Sinica; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2009; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lanzetti, A.; Ekdale, E.G. Enhancing CT imaging: A safe protocol to stain and de-stain rare fetal museum specimens using diffusible iodine-based staining (diceCT). J. Anat. 2021, 239, 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leavey, A.; Richards, C.T.; Porro, L.B. Comparative muscle anatomy of the anuran pelvis and hindlimb in relation to locomotor mode. J. Anat. 2024, 245, 751–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Meiri, S. Length–weight allometries in lizards. J. Zool. 2010, 281, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vukov, T.; Kuručki, M.; Anđelković, M.; Tomašević-Kolarov, N. Post-metamorphic ontogenetic changes in head size and shape of the pool frog (Pelophylax lessonae, Ranidae). Arch. Biol. Sci. 2018, 70, 307–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomas, K.N.; Gower, D.J.; Bell, R.C.; Fujita, M.K.; Schott, R.K.; Streicher, J.W. Eye size and investment in frogs and toads correlate with adult habitat, activity pattern and breeding ecology. P. Roy. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2020, 287, 20201393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fabrezi, M.; Goldberg, J.; Chuliver Pereyra, M. Morphological variation in anuran limbs: Constraints and novelties. J. Exp. Zool. Part B 2017, 328, 546–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Watters, J.L.; Cummings, S.T.; Flanagan, R.L.; Siler, C.D. Review of morphometric measurements used in anuran species descriptions and recommendations for a standardized approach. Zootaxa 2016, 4072, 477–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liao, W.B.; Liao, Y.M.; Xiao, W.M.; Chen, W.; Mi, Z.P.; Li, C. Sexual dimorphism in hind limb muscle mass of the Andrew’s Toad (Bufo andrewsi) in relation to sexual selection. North-West J. Zool. 2012, 8, 252–256. [Google Scholar]
  50. Duellman, W.E.; Trueb, L. Biology of Amphibians; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  51. Myatt, J.P.; Crompton, R.H.; Thorpe, S.K. Hindlimb muscle architecture in non-human great apes and a comparison of methods for analysing inter-species variation. J. Anat. 2011, 219, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhou, B.X. Frog Anatomy; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1956. [Google Scholar]
  53. Abdala, V.; Diogo, R. Comparative anatomy, homologies and evolution of the pectoral and forelimb musculature of tetrapods with special attention to extant limbed amphibians and reptiles. J. Anat. 2010, 217, 536–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Manzano, A.S.; Abdala, V.; Herrel, A. Morphology and function of the forelimb in arboreal frogs: Specializations for grasping ability? J. Anat. 2008, 213, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Böhmer, C.; Fabre, A.C.; Taverne, M.; Herbin, M.; Peigné, S.; Herrel, A. Functional relationship between myology and ecology in carnivores: Do forelimb muscles reflect adaptations to prehension? Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2019, 127, 661–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Taylor-Burt, K.R.; Biewener, A.A. Aquatic and terrestrial takeoffs require different hindlimb kinematics and muscle function in mallard ducks. J. Exp. Biol. 2020, 223, jeb223743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chin, B.Z.; Wee, I.J.Y.; Syn, N.L.X.; Krishna, L. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis comparing semitendinosus alone and semitendinosus with gracilis tendon autografts. J. Knee Surg. 2019, 32, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Přikryl, T.; Aerts, P.; Havelková, P.; Herrel, A.; Roček, Z. Pelvic and thigh musculature in frogs (Anura) and origin of anuran jumping locomotion. J. Anat. 2009, 214, 100–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Padilla, P.; Courant, J.; Herrel, A. Allocation trade-offs impact organ size and muscle architecture in an invasive population of Xenopus laevis in Western France. J. Anat. 2019, 235, 1057–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Feng, X.Y. Systematic Anatomy of Bufo Gargarizans; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 1990; Volume 3, pp. 12–58. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bell, M.B. Sex and age influence responses to changes in the cost of cooperative care in a social carnivore. Behav. Ecol. 2010, 21, 1118–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Zamaletdinov, R.; Svinin, A.; Fayzulin, A.; Ermakov, O.; Mikhaylova, R.; Litvinchuk, S. Age Structure of Water Frogs of the Genus Pelophylax in the Middle Volga River Region (European Russia). Animals 2025, 15, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Rahman, A.; Muktadir, M.G. SPSS: An imperative quantitative data analysis tool for social science research. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci. 2021, 5, 300–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 19 March 2025).
  65. Wickham, H.; Chang, W. ggplot2: Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. Version 2.1.0. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggplot2 (accessed on 19 March 2025).
  66. Kim, E.B.; Kim, E.S.; Sung, H.C.; Lee, D.H.; Kim, G.J.; Nam, D.H. Comparison of the skeletal features of two sympatric tree frogs (Hylidae: Hyla)—Hyla japonica and Hyla suweonensis—Using three-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J. Asia Pac. Biodivers. 2021, 14, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liao, W.B.; Zeng, Y.; Zhou, C.Q.; Jehle, R. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans fails to obey Rensch’s rule. Front Zool. 2013, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Saulnier Masson, R.; Daoues, K.; Measey, J.; Herrel, A. The evolution of bite force and head morphology in scincid lizards: Diet and habitat use as possible drivers. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2023, 140, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xuereb, S. Evaluating Head Shape Morphology and Somatic Growth Rate Variation in Komodo dragons over Ontogeny; Deakin University: Geelong, VIC, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  70. Liang, T.; Wang, L.; Shi, L. Sexual and natural selection interplay in sexual head shape dimorphism of two sympatric racerunners (Squamata: Lacertidae). Front Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 1016885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. de Sousa Machado, H.T.; Ferreira da Silva, C.; Alves Benício, R.; Waldemar Ávila, R. Feeding ecology, reproductive biology, and sexual dimorphism of Boana raniceps (Anura: Hylidae) in an area of Caatinga, northeastern Brazil. Caldasia 2024, 46, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lappin, A.K.; Wilcox, S.C.; Moriarty, D.J.; Stoeppler, S.A.; Evans, S.E.; Jones, M.E. Bite force in the horned frog (Ceratophrys cranwelli) with implications for extinct giant frogs. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Butler, M.A.; Sawyer, S.A.; Losos, J.B. Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards. Nature 2007, 447, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Huang, C.H.; Zhong, M.J.; Liao, W.B.; Kotrschal, A. Investigating the role of body size, ecology, and behavior in anuran eye size evolution. Evol. Ecol. 2019, 33, 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Moo, E.K.; Peterson, D.R.; Leonard, T.R.; Kaya, M.; Herzog, W. In vivo muscle force and muscle power during near-maximal frog jumps. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. O’Reilly, J.C.; Summers, A.P.; Ritter, D.A. The evolution of the functional role of trunk muscles during locomotion in adult amphibians. Am. Zool. 2000, 40, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ma, H.; Jin, L.; Zhao, L.; Yan, C.; Mi, Z. Genetic and metabolic insights into sexual dimorphism in the flexor carpi radialis of Asiatic toads (Bufo gargarizans) associated with amplexus behavior. BMC Genom. 2025, 26, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Navas, C.A.; James, R.S. Sexual dimorphism of extensor carpi radialis muscle size, isometric force, relaxation rate and stamina during the breeding season of the frog Rana temporaria Linnaeus 1758. J. Exp. Biol. 2007, 210, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. de Souza Junior, P.; de Souza Pahim, A.B.; Viotto-Souza, W.; Pellenz, J.; Bernardes, F.C.S.; Abidu-Figueiredo, M.; Santos, A.L.Q. Evolutionary history or function? Which preponderates in the expression of the muscle mass of the thoracic limb in wild carnivorans? Anat. Rec. 2021, 304, 1344–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, Y.J.; Jiang, Y.; Mi, Z.P.; Liao, W.B. Testing the role of environmental harshness and sexual selection in limb muscle mass in anurans. Front Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 879885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leavey, A.; Ruta, M.; Richards, C.T.; Porro, L.B. Locomotor, ecological and phylogenetic drivers of skeletal proportions in frogs. J. Anat. 2023, 243, 404–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hasan, O.; Houlihan, M.; Yang, D.; Kohler, T. Testosterone as a Performance Enhancer. In Controversies in Testosterone Deficiency; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 123–138. [Google Scholar]
  83. Betancourth-Cundar, M.; Canoine, V.; Fusani, L.; Cadena, C.D. Does testosterone underly the interplay between male traits and territorial behavior in neotropical poison frogs? Horm. Behav. 2024, 162, 105547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Patey, C.P.; Driedzic, W.R. Cold acclimation increases activities of mitochondrial long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase and carnitine acyl-CoA transferase I in heart of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Can j. Zool. 1997, 75, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Finkler, M.S.; Hayes, C.J.; Rifai, L. Sexual dimorphisms in metabolism, organ mass, and reproductive energetics in pre-breeding American toads (Anaxyrus americanus). Copeia 2014, 2014, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cotes, J.E.; Chinn, D.J.; Miller, M.R. Lung function: Physiology, Measurement and Application in Medicine; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kooijman, S.A.L.M. Dynamic Energy Budget Theory for Metabolic Organisation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  88. Crane, H.R.; Rollins, L.A.; Shine, R.; Brown, G. Effect of parasite infection and invasion history on feeding, growth, and energy allocation of cane toads. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2025, 144, blae054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Li, H.; Chen, S.; Jiang, J.; He, B.; Zhang, M. Exploring sexual differences in external morphology and limb muscles of Hylarana guentheri (Anura: Ranidae) during non-breeding season. Acta Zool. 2023, 104, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhelev, Z.; Mollov, I.; Tsonev, S. Application of fluctuating asymmetry values in Pelophylax ridibundus (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae) meristic traits as a method for assessing environmental quality of areas with different degrees of urbanization. Divers. Distrib. 2023, 15, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Salla, R.F.; Jones-Costa, M.; Abdalla, F.C.; Vidal, F.A.; Boeing, G.A.; Oliveira, C.R.; Silva-Zacarin, E.C.; Franco-Belussi, L.; Rizzi-Possignolo, G.M.; Lambertini, C. Differential liver histopathological responses to amphibian chytrid infection. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 2020, 142, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Live photographs documenting the hindlimb-digging processes of Kaloula borealis (a). The dorsal (b), dorsolateral (c), and ventral (d) views of the female. The ventral view (e) of the male. The ventral views of the female hand (f) and foot (g).
Figure 1. Live photographs documenting the hindlimb-digging processes of Kaloula borealis (a). The dorsal (b), dorsolateral (c), and ventral (d) views of the female. The ventral view (e) of the male. The ventral views of the female hand (f) and foot (g).
Animals 15 02118 g001
Figure 2. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the studied muscles in the dorsal (a) and ventral (b) views, as well as internal organs (c) of Kaloula borealis.
Figure 2. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the studied muscles in the dorsal (a) and ventral (b) views, as well as internal organs (c) of Kaloula borealis.
Animals 15 02118 g002
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) on the external morphological characteristics (a), forelimb, abdomen, and pectoral girdle muscle mass (b), hindlimb muscle mass (c), and internal organ mass (d) of males (green triangles) and females (pink circles) of fossorial Kaloula borealis.
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) on the external morphological characteristics (a), forelimb, abdomen, and pectoral girdle muscle mass (b), hindlimb muscle mass (c), and internal organ mass (d) of males (green triangles) and females (pink circles) of fossorial Kaloula borealis.
Animals 15 02118 g003
Figure 4. Scatter plots with linear regression lines illustrating the correlation between snout-vent length (X axis) and the external morphological characteristics, limb muscle mass, and internal organ mass (Y axis), which exhibit significant sexual dimorphism in fossorial Kaloula borealis. The external morphological characteristics include the eye diameter (a), head width (b), and thigh width (c). The limb muscle mass include the obliquus abdominis externus (d), musculus rectus abdominis (e), anconaeus (f), obliquus abdominis internus (g), flexor digitorum communis (h), biceps femoris (i), gracilis major (j), tibialis posticus (k), semimembranosus (l), and semitendinosus (m). The internal organ mass includes the lung (n) and heart (o). The green triangles indicate the male data, while the pink circles indicate the female data.
Figure 4. Scatter plots with linear regression lines illustrating the correlation between snout-vent length (X axis) and the external morphological characteristics, limb muscle mass, and internal organ mass (Y axis), which exhibit significant sexual dimorphism in fossorial Kaloula borealis. The external morphological characteristics include the eye diameter (a), head width (b), and thigh width (c). The limb muscle mass include the obliquus abdominis externus (d), musculus rectus abdominis (e), anconaeus (f), obliquus abdominis internus (g), flexor digitorum communis (h), biceps femoris (i), gracilis major (j), tibialis posticus (k), semimembranosus (l), and semitendinosus (m). The internal organ mass includes the lung (n) and heart (o). The green triangles indicate the male data, while the pink circles indicate the female data.
Animals 15 02118 g004
Table 1. List of the studied 32 appendicular muscles and their functional implications.
Table 1. List of the studied 32 appendicular muscles and their functional implications.
Functional GroupsMusclesReferences
1. Pectoral girdle flexorsDeltoideus scapularis (DS); coracobrachialis longus (COL); coracobrachialis brevis (COB)Duellman and Trueb [50]; Myatt, Crompton, and Thorpe [51].
2. Upper arm flexorPectoralis (PE); pectoralis abdominis, lateral portion (PALP);Zhou [52].
3. Forearm flexorCoracoradialis (CO)Abdala and Diogo [53].
4. Carpus flexorsFlexor carpi ulnaris (FCU); flexor carpi radialis (FCR); flexor digitorum communis (FDC)Manzano, Abdala, and Herrel [54]; Böhmer et al. [55].
5. Elbow extensorsAnconaeus (AN); triceps brachii (TB)Böhmer et al. [55].
6. Carpus extensorsExtensor carpi ulnaris (ECU); extensor carpi radialis (ECR)Böhmer et al. [55].
7. Abdominal muscleMusculus rectus abdominis (MRA); obliquus abdominis internus (OAI), obliquus abdominis externus (OAE)Zhou [52].
8. Knee flexorsBiceps femoris (BF); semimembranosus (SEM); sartorius (SA); gastrocnemius (GA)Zhou [52]; Taylor-Burt and Biewener [56].
9. Knee flexors and internal tibial rotatorsGracilis major (GMA); gracilis minor (GMI); semitendinosus (SET)Chin et al. [57].
10. Hip adductorsAdductor magnus (AM); adductor longus (AL)Přikryl et al. [58].
11. Knee extensorTriceps femoris (TF)Padilla, Courant, and Herrel [59].
12. Long extensorsPeroneus (PE); tibialis anticus longus (TAL); tibialis posticus (TP); extensor cruris (EC)Padilla, Courant, and Herrel [59].
13. OthersPiriformis (PI); iliopsoas (IL)Zhou [52].
Table 5. Principal component analysis of external morphological characteristics and mass of appendicular muscles and internal organs.
Table 5. Principal component analysis of external morphological characteristics and mass of appendicular muscles and internal organs.
External Morphological CharacteristicsPC1PC2PC3PC4PC5PC6Forelimb, Chest, and Abdominal MusclesPC1PC2PC3PC4Hindlimb MusclesPC1PC2PC3Internal OrgansPC1PC2PC3
1. HL0.16−0.020.380.610.05−0.341. COL0.46−0.020.69−0.281.BF0.47−0.810.091.HE0.66−0.67−0.01
2. HW0.120.18−0.430.70−0.22−0.062. COB0.50−0.09−0.52−0.122.TF0.380.860.042.LI0.82−0.240.27
3. UAL0.240.460.37−0.270.17−0.523. DS0.810.060.31−0.163.AL0.74−0.03−0.073.SP0.620.48−0.07
4. UAW0.63−0.270.150.270.310.254. PE0.67−0.27−0.19−0.204.SA0.69−0.46−0.054.LU0.670.25−0.49
5. LAHL−0.140.110.610.210.390.295. PALP0.82−0.13−0.01−0.075.AM0.910.050.035.KI0.73−0.180.18
6. LAD0.68−0.210.05−0.050.18−0.226. CO0.690.01−0.260.456.GMA0.88−0.110.236.DI0.360.510.72
7. THIL0.170.81−0.08−0.120.060.297. FCR0.47−0.08−0.380.207.GMI0.720.11−0.017.COAD0.530.25−0.45
8. THIW0.650.17−0.450.04−0.190.078. FCU0.49−0.36−0.27−0.368.SEM0.710.510.26
9. TL0.270.660.17−0.31−0.170.149. FDC0.27−0.650.200.189.SET0.91−0.01−0.02
10. TW0.82−0.180.00−0.11−0.160.0010. AN0.640.39−0.200.2110.PI0.540.26−0.53
11. TARL0.010.34−0.410.220.650.2111. ECR0.430.200.490.5511.IL0.54−0.050.68
12. TARW0.86−0.080.09−0.090.050.0212. ECU0.68−0.470.010.1912.TAL0.93−0.02−0.06
13. FL0.000.590.210.44−0.28−0.1913. MRA0.620.570.08−0.2413.GA0.59−0.12−0.09
14. ED0.11−0.120.450.15−0.440.5414. OAE0.340.85−0.090.0714.PE0.77−0.05−0.16
15. OAI0.340.850.02−0.1615.EC0.72−0.09−0.45
16. TB0.78−0.280.14−0.1116.TP0.680.140.15
Explanatory rate20.8714.3310.8810.368.267.59 34.6318.099.516.59 51.5112.457.11 41.2916.2815.23
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, X.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, J.; Dong, B. Uncovering Sexual Differences in the External Morphology, Appendicular Muscles, and Internal Organs of a Fossorial Narrow-Mouth Frog (Kaloula borealis). Animals 2025, 15, 2118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15142118

AMA Style

Wang X, Zhang M, Zhang W, Jiang J, Dong B. Uncovering Sexual Differences in the External Morphology, Appendicular Muscles, and Internal Organs of a Fossorial Narrow-Mouth Frog (Kaloula borealis). Animals. 2025; 15(14):2118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15142118

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Xiuping, Meihua Zhang, Wenyi Zhang, Jianping Jiang, and Bingjun Dong. 2025. "Uncovering Sexual Differences in the External Morphology, Appendicular Muscles, and Internal Organs of a Fossorial Narrow-Mouth Frog (Kaloula borealis)" Animals 15, no. 14: 2118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15142118

APA Style

Wang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, W., Jiang, J., & Dong, B. (2025). Uncovering Sexual Differences in the External Morphology, Appendicular Muscles, and Internal Organs of a Fossorial Narrow-Mouth Frog (Kaloula borealis). Animals, 15(14), 2118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15142118

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