Comparative analysis of size and shape variation in Tridacna maxima (Röding, 1798) along the central and northern Red Sea coasts of Saudi Arabia


Abstract

This study examines regional and genetic influences on shell morphology of the small giant clam Tridacna maxima from the central and northern Red Sea of Saudi Arabia using linear mixed model and geometric morphometrics. Shell height and length exhibit significant regional differences, with individuals from the North showing greater dimensions (height: F₁,₁₇ = 12.102, p = 0.003; length: F₁,₁₇ = 9.219, p = 0.007) than those from the Central region. No significant effects were observed for haplotype, side, or their interactions, suggesting that shell size variation reflects environmental rather than genetic drivers. Geometric morphometric analysis revealed that the first two principal components explained 44% of total shape variance, but discriminant analysis showed weak and nonsignificant group separation (Mahalanobis distance = 1.78–1.89; p = 0.999). The stability of shell form across haplotypes and regions indicates developmental canalization, with phenotypic plasticity influencing size under different environmental conditions. Larger shells in the North likely reflect more favourable hydrological and nutrient regimes, while smaller shells in the Central region may be linked to higher turbidity and anthropogenic stress. These findings highlight environmental modulation of clam growth in the Red Sea, supporting the view that regional habitat variability, rather than genetic differentiation, primarily shapes phenotypic diversity in T. maxima populations.
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].