Back to all available

Environmental factors and co-occurrence patterns influence dorsal brightness in two jumping mice species in the western United States

biogeography
conservation-biology
ecology

Abstract

Background. The phenotype is the result of interactions between an organism’s genotype and its environment. One phenotypic trait of interest is dorsal coloration, which animals use to communicate, avoid detection from predators, thermoregulate, and more.
Methods. Here we used standardized photography of museum specimens to explore the variation in dorsal brightness of the endangered New Mexico jumping mouse (Zapus luteus) in areas of allopatry and sympatry with western jumping mouse (Z. princeps) in the southwestern United States.
Results. For Z. luteus we found statistically significant differences in brightness among isolated, genetically-differentiated populations in Arizona and New Mexico. We also found evidence that dorsal brightness of both species is associated with geographic (elevation, latitude) and bioclimatic (precipitation, temperature) features as well as interspecific interactions (syntopy patterns). We additionally found significant, predictable interspecific differences in color between Z. luteus and Z. princeps where they co-occur, however these differences would be difficult to distinguish visually.
Conclusions. Our findings emphasize that both biotic and abiotic factors influence dorsal coloration in free-living organisms, and the importance of using multiple lines of evidence to identify co-occurring congeners in the field. For endangered species like Z. luteus, correct identification can have important management implications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].