Reliable proxies for glandular secretion production in lacertid lizards

The epidermal glands of lizards are considered an important source of semiochemicals involved in lizard communication. Many features of the lizard epidermal gland system vary among and within species (e.g. gland number, size, and shape), and some are believed to reflect the degree of intra- and interspecific variation in glandular secretion production, and by extension, the chemical signalling investment of lizards. Traditionally, herpetologists estimate secretion production based on the number of glands or the size of the glands, rather than quantifying the amount of secretion produced. Still, the reliability of these proxies for secretion production has never been validated. Here, I explored the relationship among secretion production (in mass), pore size (surface area, diameter), and gland number in three species of lacertid lizards (Acanthodactylus boskianus, Timon lepidus, Holaspis guentheri), and tested which proxies predicted secretion production variation best, and examined whether the same trend is true for all species. The findings of this study show that the total secretion production of lacertids is highly variable among and within species. Variation in secretion production among-species (but not within-species) could partly be explained by variation in body size. While both measures of pore size were positively related with secretion production, my tests revealed the model with only pore diameter as contributing variable explaining absolute secretion production variation (both within and across species) as the best one. Although gland number appeared a suboptimal estimate for secretion production in the three lacertids under study, only family-wide, multi-species comparative tests counting large within-species sample sizes can provide further insight on the matter

Upper beak depression instead of elevation dominates cranial kinesis in woodpeckers

The value of birds’ ability to move the upper beak relative to the braincase has been shown in vital tasks like feeding and singing. In woodpeckers, such cranial kinesis has been thought to hinder pecking as delivering forceful blows calls for a head functioning as a rigid unit. Here, we tested whether cranial kinesis is constrained in woodpeckers by comparing upper beak rotation during their daily activities such as food handling, calling and gaping with those from closely related species that also have a largely insectivorous diet but do not peck at wood. Both woodpeckers and non-woodpecker insectivores displayed upper beak rotations of up to 8 degrees. However, the direction of upper beak rotation differed significantly between the two groups, with woodpeckers displaying primarily depressions and non-woodpeckers displaying elevations. The divergent upper beak rotation of woodpeckers may be caused either by anatomical modifications to the craniofacial hinge that reduce elevation, by the caudal orientation of the mandible depressor muscle forcing beak depressions, or by both. Our results suggest that pecking does not result in plain rigidification at the upper beak's basis of woodpeckers, but it nevertheless significantly influences the way cranial kinesis is manifested.Este trabajo tiene asociado un conjunto de datos, al que puede accederse en "Documentos relacionados".Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Muse

Evolution of animal chemical communication : insights from non-model species and phylogenetic comparative methods

Chemical communication is probably the oldest, most ubiquitous form of information exchange in the natural world, spanning all three domains of life. While excellent sociobiological and behavioral ecological research has been conducted on the form and function of chemical signals in animals, we still know remarkably little on their evolution. Besides, much of our understanding of chemical signal diversity is restricted to insects, since studies on chemical communication in vertebrates are relatively scarce. In this review, I introduce the key concepts of animal communication and expand on the past, present, and future of research in chemical communication. When doing so, I highlight the current gaps in our knowledge on the evolution of the chemical communication system in animals, whilst emphasizing the heavy research bias towards lepidopterans. Here, I detail the benefits of using phylogenetic comparative methods to identify the motors and brakes that guide the evolution of chemical signals and chemical sensory systems. Moreover, I point out that focusing on non-model species in chemical ecology, specifically lizards, can provide valuable insights into how vertebrate chemical signals evolve, and how biological systems responsible for sending and receiving signals co-evolve with signal design. Lastly, I present a case study on lacertid lizards, demonstrating the possibilities of the phylogenetic comparative approach and the use of non-model species to study the evolution of animal chemical communication systems

Evolution of animal chemical communication : insights from non-model species and phylogenetic comparative methods

Chemical communication is probably the oldest, most ubiquitous form of information exchange in the natural world, spanning all three domains of life. While excellent sociobiological and behavioral ecological research has been conducted on the form and function of chemical signals in animals, we still know remarkably little on their evolution. Besides, much of our understanding of chemical signal diversity is restricted to insects, since studies on chemical communication in vertebrates are relatively scarce. In this review, I introduce the key concepts of animal communication and expand on the past, present, and future of research in chemical communication. When doing so, I highlight the current gaps in our knowledge on the evolution of the chemical communication system in animals, whilst emphasizing the heavy research bias towards lepidopterans. Here, I detail the benefits of using phylogenetic comparative methods to identify the motors and brakes that guide the evolution of chemical signals and chemical sensory systems. Moreover, I point out that focusing on non-model species in chemical ecology, specifically lizards, can provide valuable insights into how vertebrate chemical signals evolve, and how biological systems responsible for sending and receiving signals co-evolve with signal design. Lastly, I present a case study on lacertid lizards, demonstrating the possibilities of the phylogenetic comparative approach and the use of non-model species to study the evolution of animal chemical communication systems

Reliable proxies for glandular secretion production in lacertid lizards

<p>The epidermal glands of lizards are considered an important source of semiochemicals involved in lizard communication. Many features of the lizard epidermal gland system vary among and within species (e.g. gland number, size, and shape), and some are believed to reflect the degree of intra- and interspecific variation in glandular secretion production, and by extension, the chemical signalling investment of lizards. Traditionally, herpetologists estimate secretion production based on the number of glands or the size of the glands, rather than quantifying the amount of secretion produced. Still, the reliability of these proxies for secretion production has never been validated. Here, I explored the relationship among secretion production (in mass), pore size (surface area, diameter), and gland number in three species of lacertid lizards (<em>Acanthodactylus boskianus</em>, <em>Timon lepidus</em>, <em>Holaspis guentheri</em>), and tested which proxies predicted secretion production variation best, and examined whether the same trend is true for all species. The findings of this study show that the total secretion production of lacertids is highly variable among and within species. Variation in secretion production among-species (but not within-species) could partly be explained by variation in body size. While both measures of pore size were positively related with secretion production, my tests revealed the model with only pore diameter as contributing variable explaining absolute secretion production variation (both within and across species) as the best one. Although gland number appeared a suboptimal estimate for secretion production in the three lacertids under study, only family-wide, multi-species comparative tests counting large within-species sample sizes can provide further insight on the matter.</p