The social system of the lava lizard, Microlophus atacamensis: the interplay between social structure and social organization
Tóm tắt
Animal social systems can be described through four main components: social structure, social organization, mating system, and care system. Social structure describes the relationships between individuals in a population, while social organization describes the group composition, size, and spatiotemporal variation of a population. We use the frameworks of social structure and social organization to study the social system of Microlophus atacamensis, a lizard found in the rocky intertidal zone along the Chilean coast. The area M. atacamensis inhabits poses specific challenges stemming from their use of two distinct habitat types in the intertidal zone: they forage in the cool areas near the water’s edge and use large rocks in more inland areas for basking and refuge. Our assessment of their social system focused on two separate populations: one to characterize social structure by means of focal observations and social network analysis, and a second to assess social organization via home range and core area analyses. Further, we examined the social system in two habitat types that comprise the intertidal zone: cobble fields and interspersed large rocks. Social network analysis revealed an interconnected network with a few highly central individuals. Body size influenced the outcomes of aggressive interactions, with interactions being more common in cobble fields where males had more associates and more repeated interactions than females. Spatial analyses revealed that the social organization of M. atacamensis is characterized by (1) high home range overlap, specifically in the cobble fields and (2) relatively exclusive core areas dispersed across both habitat types. A social system is composed of both cooperative and competitive behaviors. While our study focused on competitive interactions, the extent and influence of cooperative behaviors is still unclear and merits future research. We suggest that M. atacamensis has a variable social system in which territoriality on large rocks affects access to stationary resources in that habitat (e.g., basking sites and refuges), while competition in the cobble fields could lay the foundation for a system of dominance relationships controlling access to variable food resources in cobble field areas of the intertidal zone.
Từ khóa
#Biodiversity #Ecology #Plant Systematics/Taxonomy/Biogeography #Animal Systematics/Taxonomy/Biogeography #Evolutionary BiologyTài liệu tham khảo
Stamps JA. Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism, and territoriality. In: Huey RB, Pianka ER, Schoener TW, editors. Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model Organism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1983. pp. 169–204.
Martins EP. Phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of lizard territoriality. In: Vitt LJ, Pianka ER, editors. Lizard Ecology: Historical and Experimental Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. pp. 117–44.
Doody JS, Burghardt GM, Dinets V. Breaking the social-non-social dichotomy: a role for reptiles in vertebrate social behavior research? Ethology. 2013;119(2):95–103.
Kappeler PM. A framework for studying social complexity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2019;73:1–14.
Partecke J, Haeseler A, Von, Wikelski M. Territory establishment in lekking marine iguanas, Amblyrhynchus cristatus: support for the hotshot mechanism. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2002;51(6):579–87.
Eifler D, Eifler M, Malela K, Childers J. Social networks in the Little Scrub Island ground lizard (Ameiva corax). J Ethol. 2016;34(3):343–8.
Maher CR, Lott DF. A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within vertebrate species. Am Midl Nat. 2000;143(1):1–29.
Leu ST, Burzacott D, Whiting MJ, Bull CM. Mate familiarity affects pairing behaviour in a long-term monogamous lizard: evidence from detailed bio-logging and a 31-year field study. Ethology. 2015;121(8):760–8.
Gardner MG, Pearson SK, Johnston GR, Schwarz MP. Group living in squamate reptiles: a review of evidence for stable aggregations. Biol Rev. 2016;91(4):925–36.
Johnson DDP, Kays R, Blackwell PG, Macdonald DW. Does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain group living? Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17(12):563–70.
Silk J, Cheney D, Seyfarth R. A practical guide to the study of social relationships. Evol Anthropol. 2013;22(5):213–25.
Doody JS, Dinets V, Burghardt GM. The secret social lives of reptiles. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2021.
Croft DP, James R, Krause J. Exploring animal social networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008.
Leu ST, Farine DR, Wey TW, Sih A, Bull CM. Environment modulates population social structure: experimental evidence from replicated social networks of wild lizards. Anim Behav. 2016;111:23–31.
Mbizah MM, Farine DR, Valeix M, Hunt JE, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ. Effect of ecological factors on fine-scale patterns of social structure in African lions. J Anim Ecol. 2020;89(11):2665–76.
Schlesinger CA, Shine R. Selection of diurnal retreat sites by the nocturnal gekkonid lizard Oedura lesueurii. Herpetologica. 1994;50(2):156–63.
Eifler MA, Marchand R, Eifler DA, Malela K. Habitat use and activity patterns in the nocturnal gecko, Chondrodactylus turneri. Herpetologica. 2017;73(1):43–7.
Hedman HD, Chuga SC, Eifler DA, Hanghome GPK, Eifler MA. Microhabitat use of two sympatric geckos, Turner’s thick-toed gecko (Chondrodactylus turneri) and the common Namib day gecko (Rhoptropus afer). J Arid Environ. 2021;188:104448.
Croak BM, Pike DA, Webb JK, Shine R. Three-dimensional crevice structure affects retreat site selection by reptiles. Anim Behav. 2008;76(6):1875–84.
Eifler DA, Eifler MA, Eifler EN. Habitat use and movement patterns in the graceful crag lizard, Pseudocordylus capensis. Afr Zool. 2007;42(2):152–7.
Vasconcelos R, Santos X, Carretero MA. High temperatures constrain microhabitat selection and activity patterns of the insular Cape Verde wall gecko. J Arid Environ. 2012;81:18–25.
Burt WH. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal. 1943;24(3):346–52.
Börger L, Dalziel BD, Fryxell JM. Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett. 2008;11(6):637–50.
Passos DC, Galdino CAB, Rocha CFD. Challenges and perspectives for studies on home range of lizards from South America. South Am J Herpetol. 2015;10(2):82–9.
Vander Wal E, Rodgers AR. An individual-based quantitative approach for delineating core areas of animal space use. Ecol Modell. 2012;224(1):48–53.
Fox SF, Shipman PA. Social behavior at high and low elevations: Environmental release and phylogenetic effects in Liolaemus. In: Fox SF, McCoy JK, Baird TA, editors. Lizard Social Behavior. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2003. pp. 310–434.
Stamps JA. Social behavior and spacing patterns in lizards. In: Gans C, Tinkle DW, editors. Biology of the Reptilia. New York: Academic Press; 1977. pp. 265–334.
Stone PA, Snell HL, Snell HM. Island biogeography of morphology and social behavior in the lava lizards of the Galapagos Islands. In: Fox SF, McCoy JK, Baird TA, editors. Lizard Social Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2003. pp. 190–239.
Maher CR, Lott DF. Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Anim Behav. 1995;49(6):1581–97.
Effenberger E, Mouton PLFN. Space use in a multi-male group of the group-living lizard. J Zool. 2007;272(2):202–8.
Spiller DA, Piovia-Scott J, Wright AN, Yang LH, Takimoto G, Schoener TW, et al. Marine subsidies have multiple effects on coastal food webs. Ecology. 2010;91(5):1424–34.
Wright AN, Piovia-Scott J, Spiller DA, Takimoto G, Yang LH, Schoener TW. Pulses of marine subsidies amplify reproductive potential of lizards by increasing individual growth rate. Oikos. 2013;122(10):1496–504.
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
Whitehead H. Analyzing animal societies: quantitative methods for vertebrate social analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2008.
Almaas E, Vazquez A, Barabási L. Scale-free networks in biology. In: Kepes F, editor. Biological Networks. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.; 2007. pp. 1–19.
Bejder L, Fletcher D, Bräger S. A method for testing association patterns of social animals. Anim Behav. 1998;56(3):719–25.
Kenward RE, Casey NM, Walls SS, South AB. Ranges9: For the analysis of tracking and location data. Wareham: Anatrack Ltd.; 2014.
Rose BR. Lizard home ranges: methodology and functions. J Herpetol. 1982;16(3):253–69.
Albert R, Barabási AL. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys. 2002;74(1):47–97.
Barabási AL. Scale-free networks: A decade and beyond. Science. 2009;325(5939):412–3.
Connors PG, Myers JP, Connors CSW, Pitelka FA. Interhabitat movements by sanderlings in relation to foraging profitability and the tidal cycle. Auk. 1981;98:49–64.
Torr GA, Shine R. Patterns of dominance in the small scincid lizard Lampropholis guichenoti. J Herpetol. 1996;30(2):230–7.
Noble DWA, Wechmann K, Keogh JS, Whiting MJ. Behavioral and morphological traits interact to promote the evolution of alternative reproductive tactics in a lizard. Am Nat. 2013;182(6):726–42.
Myers J, Connors P, Pitelka F. Territory size in wintering sanderlings: the effects of prey abundance and intruder density. Auk. 1979;96(3):551–61.
Wittig RM, Boesch C. Food competition and linear dominance hierarchy among female chimpanzees of the Taï National Park. Int J Primatol. 2003;24(4):847–67.
Tokarz RR. Body size as a factor determining dominance in staged agonistic encounters between male brown anoles (Anolis sagrei). Anim Behav. 1985;33(3):746–53.
Knell RJ. Population density and the evolution of male aggression. J Zool. 2009;278:83–90.
Evans LT. Field study of the social behavior of the black lizard, Ctenosaura pectinata. Am Museum Novit. 1951;1493:1–26.