Abstract
Aestivation (summer dormancy) is a long-term multiday torpor in response to hot and dry periods. It has been detected in many species of terrestrial and aquatic turtles; however, several ecological and evolutionary aspects of chelonian aestivation remain to be evaluated and understood. We conducted a comparative exploration of macroevolutionary trends in turtle aestivation and tested the potential correlation of shell morphology with the aestivation duration. We compiled a dataset of aestivation status, aestivation times, and measurements of shell morphology of 225 turtle species. We reconstructed ancestral states along a time-calibrated phylogeny and tested different evolutionary models on the presence/absence of the aestivation trait. We also performed phylogenetic comparative analysis to explore several shell morphological traits likely associated with the duration time in aestivation behavior. We found evidence of aestivation in 44% of the evaluated turtle species. Aestivation times were longer in Chelidae, Pelomedusidae, Geoemydidae, and Kinosternidae, and the shortest times in Emydidae and Testudinidae. Aestivation behavior is a derived trait evolved independently and several times in the pleurodires and cryptodires turtle groups. We found some evolutionary trends in different turtle families, Pelomedusidae and Kinosternidae showed considerable increases in the presence of the aestivation trait, while families such as Podocnemididae, Trionychidae and Chelydridae showed important deductions for the same trait. Our results for the association between shell morphology and aestivation duration in turtles were contrasting among families. Overall, it was the contribution of several and different morphological traits that allow a positive and significant association with the aestivation times.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Organisms that inhabit seasonal environments require particular traits and strategies to deal with unfavorable environmental conditions (Plummer et al., 2003; Roff, 2002; Seidel, 1978; Stearns, 1992; Withers & Cooper, 2010). Diverse physiological and behavioral adaptations have been described to deal with seasonality (Barros et al., 2020; Volaire et al., 2023). Withers and Cooper (2010) suggested that it is possible to distinguish two basic types of strategies: cryptobiosis (ametabolism) and dormancy (hypometabolism). The first involves a severe and measurable metabolic depression, in which the vital rates of organisms are reduced to a minimum. This includes anhydrobiosis (lack of loss of water from the body), cryobiosis (partial freezing of the body), osmobiosis (osmotic depression), and anoxybiosis (lack of oxygen). The second includes dormancy or hypometabolism, which involves a moderate reduction in metabolic rates (can be minimal or sometimes undetectable), as well as associated behavioral traits. There are special types of dormancies such as those expressed in early development stages: diapause and quiescence (associated with low or high temperatures) and dormancies for adult stages of individuals (torpor): hibernation (promote by low temperatures) and aestivation (in high temperatures).
Aestivation is considered a strategy to overcome the lack of water during the dry and/or hot season of the year (Withers & Cooper, 2010). The most obvious effect of the dry season is the reduction of available water and reduced relative humidity, or the complete absence of the aquatic habitat during some part of the year. For some aestivating species, the life cycle involves spending some period of the year in the water and other period in terrestrial environments (Hudson & Franklin, 2002; Li et al., 1996). For example, aquatic and ectothermic vertebrates in seasonal environments, such as lungfish, amphibians, crocodilians, and turtles, often face long periods without water (or with low atmospheric humidity) (Secor & Lignot, 2010). There is also some evidence of turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense) using ephemeral aquatic habitats or remaining in the muddy remaining ponds during dry season (Ligon & Sotne, 2003), also other mud turtles (K. creaseri) endure using reduced pools during dry season (Macip-Ríos et al., 2018).
Among the adaptations to water loss in ectotherms are the ability to conserve water in the body, the construction of burrows, tissues, and fluids to facilitate aestivation (e.g., hibernaculum, mucus or excretions in lungfish and amphibians), as well as other behavioral and physiological traits (e.g., migration, activity and/or metabolism reduction) (Glass et al., 2009; Plummer et al., 2003; Steen et al., 2007; Withers & Cooper, 2010). Morphological traits to deal with desiccation and water loss have been examined in aestivating ectotherms such as snails (Emberton, 1994; Giokas et al., 2005; Perrott et al., 2007), generating even some discrepancies about the functionality of morphological features such as the operculum, the size and the shape of the shell to avoid dehydration (see Arad, 1993; Emberton, 1994). In general perspective, morphological traits as opposed to physiological and behavioral adaptations for aestivation have received less research attention (Murphy et al., 2016; Secor & Lignot, 2010).
In turtles, at least two primary behavioral responses to the absence of environmental water have been reported; some individuals of the population migrate (Gibbons et al., 1983), while others aestivate (Roe et al., 2008). Few things have been mentioned about the morphology associated with aestivation (Wygoda & Chmura, 1990). It is possible that some morphological characters are associated with aestivation in turtles; for example, a shell that closes completely can reduce evapotranspiration (Berry, 1997; Dodd, 2001; Murphy et al., 2016). Similarly, reductions in skin surface area can retard evaporative water loss (Stone & Iverson, 1999). However, these are little-explored aspects of turtle morphology and function.
Aestivation has been reported for several turtle lineages, including both pleurodires (side-necks) and cryptodires (hidden-necks) (Peterson & Stone, 2000; Roe et al., 2008; Withers & Cooper, 2010), but the origin and evolution of this trait in turtles remains unknown. Although aestivation has been described in some species (Ligon & Peterson, 2002; Peterson & Stone, 2000; Withers & Cooper, 2010), it is still an understudied phenomenon from the evolutionary and comparative points of view (Peterson & Stone, 2000). However, basic information for many turtle species does exist on whether or not they aestivate, as well as their average and maximum aestivation times (Abe, 1995; Ernst & Barbour, 1992). Here, we compiled a global database on aestivation in turtles, conduct a comparative examination of macroevolutionary trends in turtle aestivation, and tested the association of shell morphology with aestivation times. We hypothesized (1) that the origin of aestivation in turtles has an early ancestral root and has evolved several times in the ancestors of current species and (2) morphological variation in shell traits of extant turtles could explain differences in the aestivation duration.
Materials and Methods
Data Collection
We compiled a comparative dataset including aestivation status (aestivate/do not aestivate), shell morphometric data, and aestivation time from 225 freshwater turtle and tortoise species. Aestivation data (presence/absence and times) were gathered through information available in the scientific literature (Supplementary data, Table S1). Morphometric data were collected from the carapace and plastron of 1143 museum or living specimens (when available) (see Table S2; main institutions and source of specimens).
To compile our dataset on aestivation presence/absence in chelonians, we considered aestivation as present in a species if it was reported in at least one population or subspecies in the literature. Tentatively, we recorded aestivation as absent when published studies or personal communications with qualified researchers supported that hypothesis. Maximum and mean aestivation time (henceforth called MAEST and MEST) were compiled, and a phylogenetic ANOVA was implemented under the function phylANOVA with the package phytools (Revell, 2012) in R (R Core Team, 2021) to search for differences in aestivation times among turtle families.
Many species (n = 27) assessed for the status of aestivation (see Table S1) were not present in the phylogenetic time tree used to assemble the final dataset for the main evolutionary analysis (Thomson et al., 2021; see below). Therefore, these species were not included in the phylogenetic comparative analyses, instead were included to illustrate the summary information on the global status of aestivation in chelonians.
Shell Morphological Traits
The shell morphological characteristics that we measured included the following: minimum straight-line carapace length (CL; mid-line of cervical scute to cleavage between supracaudal scutes), straight-line plastron length (PL; midline length), straight plastron width (PW; length of the seam that connects abdominal and pectoral plastral scutes), straight plastral lobe width (LOBE; the length of the seam that connects femoral and abdominal scutes), carapace width (CW; width at the junction of the fifth and sixth marginal scutes), shell height (SH; the maximum vertical height from plastron to carapace), and bridge length (Bridge; the length from axillary to inguinal notch). All measurements were made to the nearest 0.1 mm using dial calipers.
In addition, we calculated the S and F indices, two metrics related to the shape of the turtle’s shell (Domokos & Várkonyi, 2008) and a third metric, the surface area-to-volume ratio of the carapace (SA/V), known to be associated with rates of heat exchange with the environment (Boyer, 1965). We calculated these metrics using some of the shell measurements with the following formulae: S = (SH × CW)/CL2)1/3 and F = (CL + CW)/(2 × SH) (Domokos & Várkonyi, 2008). The SA/V ratio was calculated by approximating the carapace as half of an ellipsoid. The surface area (SA) and volume (V) of the turtle’s carapace was calculated using the following formulae: SA = 4π[(ApBp + ApCp + BpCp)/3]1/p/2 and V = 2/3 (ABC); where A was half of CL, B was half of CW, C was half of SH, and p was a standardized, fixed value of 1.6075 (Berlant & Stayton, 2017). In general, high scores of S correspond with a more spherical shell whereas a high value of F corresponds with a flatter shell (Ana et al., 2015). A higher SA/V ratio corresponds to a higher relative surface area of the carapace (Boyer, 1965). We compared average values by species for all indices.
Evolutionary Analyses
We reconstructed ancestral states for aestivation status using the phylogeny of Thomson et al. (2021), which is based on a multilocus DNA sequence data for 279 extant turtle species and calibrated with 22 fossil species. We inferred ancestral states for presence or absence of aestivation using the corHMM function in the corHMM v2.5 R package (Beaulieu et al., 2017, 2021). This function calculates the maximum likelihood estimates of transition rates between states and then uses these values for determining state probabilities for internal nodes of the tree and can also incorporate “hidden” rate changes (e.g., different velocities of evolutionary rates among clades (Boyko & Beaulieu, 2021).
We constructed five models by modifying the transition (Q) matrix. The first considered all transition rates as equal (ER model). The second allowed for transition rates between states to differ (ARD model). These two models assume that the process generating the different states at the tips and ancestral nodes is homogenous across all branches of a phylogenetic tree, which may be a major simplification of biological reality (Ibáñez et al., 2021). The generalized hidden Markov model (Beaulieu & Donoghue, 2013; Boyko & Beaulieu, 2021) implemented in corHMM v2.5 relaxes this assumption by allowing more than one process to affect trait evolution across a phylogeny. This is achieved by constructing > 1 rate categories (i.e., transition matrices) and allowing them to vary across the tree by parameterizing the transitions among rate categories (Ibáñez et al., 2021). We constructed three different models, each with two rate matrices (R1 and R2, rate.cat = 2). We specified a model with two equal rate (ER/ER model) matrices, another with two all rates different (ARD/ARD model) matrices, and finally a mixed ER/ARD model. In all cases, rate category transitions (R1 → R2 and R2 → R1) were allowed to differ. Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample size (Burnham & Anderson, 2004) was calculated from the log-likelihoods to compare the fit of the models. Each model was run 100 times (nstarts = 100). All analyses mentioned were performed using R v4.0.5 (R Core Team, 2021).
Correlating Aestivation Time and Shell Morphology
Given that turtle species in our study have a shared evolutionary history, we performed phylogenetic comparative analyses. Aestivation times (MAEST and MEST) for each species (Supplementary data, Table S1) were square root-transformed to fulfill normality assumptions and standardize values. We obtained mean values of ten shell morphological variables (CL, PL, PW, Lobe, CW, SH, Bridge, S index, F index, SA/V) for each species with aestivation present (Supplementary data, Table S2). We log10-transformed these data and then eliminated body size effect on shell variables by calculating phylogenetic residuals using the ‘phylo.resid’, a function in the ‘phytools’ package (Revell, 2012). To explore whether the aestivation times (dependent variables) can be explained by shell morphological variables (predictive variables); we performed phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) model analyses employing the ‘pgls’ function in ‘caper’ (Orme et al., 2018) and ‘ape’ (Paradis & Schliep, 2019) R packages. We constructed saturated and simplified models that included all sampled turtle species, and the two models by representative families in our dataset. We based our model selection (including evolutionary models) on two criteria: first, Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample size (AICC), which had the lowest value for AICC and the highest Akaike weight (AICw; Burnham & Anderson, 2004); second, we considered the delta AICC values (ΔAICC) criterion, where better models are indicated by ΔAICC values less than 2 (Symonds & Moussalli, 2011). See Supplementary data S4 for details.
Results
Aestivation Distribution
Our dataset indicates that just under half (44.4%) of 225 species of turtles aestivate. (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1). Within pleurodire turtles, the aestivation was present in all three families: Chelidae (43.8% of species), Podocnemididae (25% of species) and Pelomedusidae (88.9% of species), while in cryptodiran turtles, the families with evidence of aestivation were the Trionychidae (16.7% of species), Kinosternidae (76.6% of species), Emydidae (34.1% of species), Testudinidae (56.4% of species) and Geoemydidae (29.8 of species) (Fig. 1). No evidence (but there is anecdotal data that suggest some type of dormancy; George, 2010; Howey & Dinkelacker, 2007) of aestivation is reported for 4 of 5 extant chelydrid species (Fig. 1).
Considering the average comparisons in MAEST and MEST among turtle families with more than two species in our dataset (i.e., excluding the Podocnemididae and Trionychidae), we found no significant differences associated with aestivation times among turtle families (MAEST and MEST: phylANOVA, F = 1.61, P = 0.99; for both). However, the longest aestivation times (both MAEST and MEST) were observed for Chelidae, Pelomedusidae, Geoemydidae, and Kinosternidae (Fig. 2), and the shortest aestivation times were observed for emydids and testudinids (Fig. 2). Aestivation time was also a variable trait across species, with very long times in some species such as Pelomedusa subrufa and Kinosternon integrum, with 304 and 279 days of MAEST respectively, and very short times (e.g., 61 maximum days) in the species Mauremys leprosa, Gopherus berlandieri, and Terrapene carolina (Supplementary Table 1). MAEST also varied among species of the same genus, such as Kinosternon sonoriense (61 days) vs. K. alamosae and K. oaxacae with around 273 days each (Supplementary Table 1).
Inference of Ancestral States
Our binary state reconstruction using the Thomson et al. (2021) phylogeny revealed that aestivation does not have a single ancestral origin, being an independent trait that arose separately in the two major turtle clades (i.e., Cryptodiran and Pleurodiran) (Fig. 3). The best theoretical model with the fewest independent gains and losses was the ARD model (all rates different) (Table 1).
Notably, two of the following best-fitting models (model with two equal rates: ER/ER; mixed model: ER/ARD) incorporated hidden Markov processes with a matrix category transition at the two major turtle clades, consistent with the ARD model. In keeping with the inferred ancestral reconstruction of aestivation, two models (ARD and ER/ARD) showed that the loss rate of aestivation was much higher than the rate of aestivation maintenance (Supplementary data, Table S3). In contrast, the ER/ER model suggested a balanced rate of loss and maintenance of aestivation but was unsupported (ΔAICc = 0.25). Out of these, the ARD model was the least parameterized.
Under the ARD model, the history of aestivation in pleurodire turtles was particularly variable. Independent losses of this trait occurred multiple times, with at least 14 important losses in chelids occurring in most ancestral lineages of Phrynops, Emydura and Elseya; and six generalized and recurrent losses in the ancestors of most extant podocnemidids. The aestivation gains in pleurodires occurred mostly in ancestral clades of extant pelomedusids (seven gains) and in some few lineages of Chelodina and Mesoclemmys (Chelidae). The evolution of aestivation in cryptodires was also highly variable with contrasting patterns of loss and maintenance in the ancestral testudinid clades (at least three times more gains than losses 21:7), and prominent losses occurring in most ancestral clades of trionychids (14 losses), emydids (at least 30 losses), and geoemydids (at least 35 losses). However, the maintenance or gains of aestivation in cryptodiran turtles occurred mainly in ancestral clades of extant semiaquatic kinosternids (19 gains), Terrapene for emydids, and the terrestrial lineages of Testudo, Kinixys, Psammobates, and Pyxis for testudinids.
Association of Aestivation Time with Shell Morphology
A total of 188 PGLS models were examined to disentangle whether morphology is a good predictor of aestivation time in turtles (Supplementary data, Table S4). Based on the selection criteria used (weight and Akaike´s delta) we selected 25 models (Table 2). We did not find significant models that explain aestivation time in all turtle lineages (Table 2); although, two models “MEST ~ F index” and “MAEST ~ F index” showed an association with marginal values close to a 95% confidence interval (S = 6.32, P = 0.07; and S = 8.89, P = 0.07, respectively; Table 2). Additionally, we found in all the analyses a similar statistical response of the two dependent variables (MEST and MAEST; Table 2). Therefore, the consecutive analyses by family were only based on the dependent variable MAEST. Ten models were significant for the MAEST in Chelidae (Table 2). To avoid redundancy, we describe only the two best models here (details in Table 2). First, the best model was “MAEST ~ SH + LOBE + PL” (full model R2 = 0.888; P = 0.0003; Fig. 6A) showing MAEST has a positive and significant association with the shell height (S = 21.430; P = 0.001; Table 2; Fig. 4A) and plastral lobe width (S = 20.250; P = 0.003; Table 2; Fig. 4B), and a negative and significant association with plastron length (S = − 47.231; P = 0.001; Table 2; Fig. 5C). The second-best model was “MAEST ~ SA/V” (R2 = 0.504; P = 0.008; Table 2) showing MAEST has a negative and significant association with surface area to volume ratio of the carapace (S = -− 30.423; P = 0.008; Table 2; Fig. 5B). Finally, although not among the top best models, we consider it important to describe the model “MAEST ~ F index”, which shows a third, negative and significant association of MAEST with an indicator of the flat shape of the shell (S = -− 23.480; P = 0.018; Table 2; Fig. 5A).
Models examining MAEST in the Emydidae and Pelomedusidae were not significant (Table 2); although, in the Pelomedusidae two models (“MAEST ~ PW + PL”; Fig. 6B and “MAEST ~ BRIDGE + CL”; Table 2) MAEST showed positive and significant associations with straight plastron width (Fig. 4C) and straight carapace length and two negative and significant associations with bridge length (Fig. 5D) and straight plastron length (all, P ≤ 0.03; Table 2).
The best fit model for the Kinosternidae was “MAEST ~ BRIDGE + CW + PL” (R2 = 0.387; P = 0.038; Fig. 6C). Suggesting that MAEST had positive and significant associations with bridge length, carapace width, and plastron length (all, P ≤ 0.02; Table 2, Fig. 5D, E). For the Testudinidae the best model was “MAEST ~ SH + PW + LOBE + CW” (R2 = 0.547; P = 0.015; Fig. 6D). Where MAEST had negative and significant associations with shell height (S = − 30.733; P = 0.008; Table 2) and straight plastron width (S = − 111.09; P = 0.002; Table 2; Fig. 5F), and carapace width (S = − 130.54; P = 0.002; Table 2; Fig. 5E). Finally, the best fit model for the Geoemydidae was “MAEST ~ LOBE + PL + CL” (R2 = 0.464; P = 0.046; Fig. 6E). This suggests that MAEST had positive and significant associations with straight plastral lobe width (S = 72.270; P = 0.046; Table 2) and straight plastron length (S = 107.465; P = 0.036; Table 2; Fig. 4F).
Discussion
Evolutionary History of Aestivation in Turtles
Aestivation has been an adaptive dormancy among numerous species of invertebrates and vertebrates (Navas & Carvalho, 2010). For example, the pulmonate snail Oxystyla pulchella and the Australian water-holding frog Cyclorana platycephala can survive long dormant periods 23 years, Baker, 1934; 5 years, Van Beurden, 1980, respectively. In turtles, the longest recorded aestivation time is for the Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens with two years of dormancy (Rose, 1980). Although the duration of aestivation is highly variable, the understanding of aestivation in ectothermic vertebrates is still a little explored field, and the evolutionary relationships between aestivating and non-aestivating species has been slightly established in few studies (Criscione & Köhler, 2016). In turtles, the relationships between phylogeny and behavioral traits have been little studied, compared to evolutionary studies of morphological or anatomical traits (e.g., Ascarrunz & Sánchez-Villagra, 2022; Cordero & Vlachos, 2021; Ibáñez et al., 2021). Our compilation of the occurrence of aestivation combined with a robust phylogeny provided the basis for a better understanding of the evolutionary history of a behavioral trait involved in eco-physiological adaptations, a subject little explored in turtles. The evolutionary reconstruction indicated that aestivation is a derived trait in the two major turtle clades and occurring in many independent evolutions. Aestivation seems to have been secondarily lost multiple times within the pleurodires in two of three families and within the cryptodirians in four of six families. The loss of aestivation is most evident for clades that are largely or completely aquatic (e.g., Chelydridae, Trionychidae, Emydidae, Chelidae), compared to clades that evolved toward terrestriality, such as in Testudinidae, or diversified in ephemeral aquatic habitats (e.g., Kinosternidae, Pelomedusidae).
Our results on the evolution of aestivation suggested a synapomorphic state shared by all extant turtle taxa, although with various lineages showing different trajectories (e.g., compare the podocnemidids vs. pelomedusids, or trionychids vs. kinosternids, respectively; Figs. 1, 3). The most recent paleontological hypothesis suggests that the stem ancestor of all turtles, the early proto turtle Eunotosaurus africanus (260 Ma), was a terrestrial species that dug burrows (Lyson & Bever, 2020; Lyson et al., 2016), and whose original osteological modification during the Permian Period was principally an adaptation for fossorial life, and the current protective function of the turtle shells might be an exaptation (Lyson & Bever, 2020; Lyson et al., 2016). This suggests that morphological and behavioral evolution were essential processes in the burrowing ancestor of all turtles in order to tolerate stressful conditions in terrestrial environments. Hence, at least some ability to tolerate hot and dry conditions by retreating into a burrow would be adaptive. Thus, these first proto-turtles had at least behavioral adaptations to avoid desiccation or extreme temperatures. Most turtles can tolerate a short period of lethargy if the environment is harsh, but at some point that lethargy would be supplemented by other adaptations (e.g., aestivation) that allowed the turtles to survive longer periods of environmental stress. Here, our hypothesis is that the first evolutionary event of aestivation probably arose in fully shelled turtles (i.e., pleurodires and cryptodires) during the Jurassic Period as our reconstruction suggests.
Fossil records of chelonian burrows in the Cretaceous period could have been used for aestivation in the extinct species Bauruemys elegans (Silva et al., 2022). However, it is impossible to determine a specific function accurately, since these turtle burrows could also be used for other functions such as thermoregulation, reproduction, breeding or nesting. However, the fossil species B. elegans is an extinct genus of podocnemids in which our ancestral reconstruction seems to indicate one of the largest aestivation losses for pleurodires.
The evolution of aestivation seems to be particularly variable in the extant Testudininoidea group (i.e., Emydidae, Testudinidae, and Geoemydidae), with cases of aestivation loss and retention, even within the same family (e.g., Emydidae). Despite deep divergences among branches of the turtle tree within families, the behavioral component to aestivate was retained and persists in descendants of ancient lineages that have the ability to aestivate. Regarding the turtle descendant species in which aestivation is apparently absent, the inferences indicate that this aestivation capability is not entirely erased in the evolution of turtle clades.
Shell Morphology and the Aestivation Time
Our results suggest that shell morphology is correlated with the length of aestivation time across different families of chelonians. This result seems to be consistent with other studies, since the shape, size, and other morphological dimensions of the turtle shell are important factors related to ecological and physiological performance (Butterfield et al., 2021; Murphy et al., 2016). However, it is necessary to consider this result with caution, since aestivation time in animals depends not only on the contribution of morphological traits, but also on the effect generated by several factors such as the quality of the aestivation shelters, intrinsic adaptations of each species (i.e., physiological and behavioral traits, see below) and environmental conditions.
Desiccation is considered one of the primary sources of mortality for aestivating, migrating or dispersing freshwater turtles (Finkler, 2001). Desiccation risk depends on an individual’s rate of evaporative water loss (EWL) and critical thermal tolerance, two important physiological traits of water balance and thermoregulation in ectothermic animals (Chessman, 1984; Costanzo et al., 2001; Le Galliard et al., 2021). Differences in EWL are associated with behavioral restrictions such as dispersion distance to new water bodies or terrestrial aestivation sites, time spent aestivating, and ultimately the individual’s risk of mortality from prolonged drought periods (Finkler, 2001; Seidel & Reynolds, 1980). In turtles, two morphological features that may determine inter- and intraspecific differences in EWL rates and drought sensitivity are body size and shell morphology (Murphy et al., 2016). Small turtles (e.g., juveniles or smaller species) have a higher surface area to volume ratio and therefore would be expected to lose water at a faster rate than would larger turtles (Murphy et al., 2016). Likewise, shell morphology, including the relative amount of exposed skin, also likely influences EWL rates (Costanzo et al., 2001; Stone & Iverson, 1999). Species with reduced plastrons seem to have higher EWL rates than species with more extensive shells and species capable of fully enclosing themselves within their shell (e.g., box turtles and mud turtles) should have very low EWL rates (Murphy et al., 2016; Stone & Iverson, 1999).
Morphological characteristics of the shell that influence EWL could also influence aestivation time. Rather than a single morphological characteristic exhibiting a correlation between aestivation time and shell traits across turtles, our results suggest that the effects of shell morphology on aestivation times appear to be more family-specific. Relationships between morphological indices (of shell shape) and aestivation time were only significant within chelids. Chelids with flatter shells (> F index) or with a higher SA/V tend to aestivate for less time. We believed that the shell shape of chelids probably facilitates water loss and increases rapid and progressive warming, reducing the duration of prolonged aestivation. However, more research will be needed to prove or reject our hypothesis.
Aestivation in Chelonians and Future Research
Before 2000 there was a major controversy over the role of the physiological capacities of turtles during aestivation. Authors such as Gregory (1982), Grigg et al. (1986), and Ultsch (1989) suggested that physiological abilities have little or no relevance for aestivation, emphasizing mainly behavioral definitions. Subsequent studies have shown that aestivation in turtles can be a natural or lab-induced process with associated physiological and behavioral characteristics (Peterson & Stone, 2000). Therefore, Seidel’s (1978) original definition of aestivation was: “a behavioral strategy accompanied by physiological adjustments” seems more accurate. In chelonians, aestivation is probably a facultative trait with remarkable plasticity in physiological and behavioral responses to drought (Henen et al., 1998; Kennett & Christian, 1994; Peterson & Stone, 2000), which may be different between species, populations or even between individuals (Morales-Verdeja & Vogt, 1997; Peterson & Stone, 2000).
This variation is particularly evident in the kinosternids (a lineage well known for aestivating) between aestivating and non-aestivating experimental samples (Ligon & Peterson, 2002; Seidel, 1978; Wygoda, 1979). In species such as Kinosternon hirtipes, aestivation can have serious physiological and behavioral limits (Seidel & Reynolds, 1980), and it is considered a limited or non-aestivating species (Ligon & Peterson, 2002). In contrast Kinosternon flavescens is a species strongly adapted for aestivation (Ligon & Peterson, 2002; Peterson & stone, 2000). This implies that not all turtles have the same aestivation capabilities or efficiencies. Thus, there are some species (probably the case of K. hirtipes) that use migration to more stable water bodies as a primary response to drought (Gibbons et al., 1983). Decisions to aestivate or emigrate may depend on body condition or energy stores (Derickson, 1976; Roe et al., 2008). Alternately, Peterson and Stone (2000) suggested that drought-migrant and drought-aestivating species are probably influenced by different genetic factors.
Among the aestivation responses in turtles are: (1) inactivity and/or sheltering during drought (Ligon & Peterson, 2002; McKnight & Ligon, 2020); (2) tolerance of long-term dehydration and concomitant increases in body fluid concentrations (anhomeostasis; Peterson, 1996; Peterson & Stone, 2000); (3) reduced rates of evaporative water loss (Chessman, 1984; Seidel & Reynolds, 1980); (4) reduced metabolic rate (Kennett & Christian, 1994; Seidel, 1978); and (5) storage of excretory wastes to minimize loss of water (Ligon & Peterson, 2002; Peterson & Stone, 2000). Further exploration of the evolution of physio-behavioral traits of aestivation in turtles will allow us to better understand this adaptive strategy.
A large proportion of the planet’s biodiversity and habitats is projected to be susceptible to the threat of climate change in the future (Ledig et al., 2010; Malcolm et al., 2006). It is possible that species of turtles with reported aestivation strategies are already dealing with the impacts of climate change in some areas. Model species such as Kinosternon sonoriense and K. flavescens, faced with the desertification of southwestern North America over the last 12,000 years (Fredrickson et al., 1998) may be under particularly strong selection for aestivation ability (Ligon & Peterson, 2002; Peterson & Stone, 2000). The shift toward an increasingly arid climate undoubtedly will have a profound impact on aquatic biodiversity (Ligon & Peterson, 2002). Given those possible changes, some questions arise: If the thermal and hydric quality of the habitat is affected by global warming, for turtles with little or no possibility of migrating, would aestivation be selected for in those environments? Will the limits of aestivation ability be reached in the near future? In cases of aestivating species dealing with prolonged periods of drought, would increased body size be an adaptive response? These and other questions can only be answered by conducting population studies that address the multiple ecological and physio-behavioral relationships of the aestivation process through time. Finally, based on experimental and field data, we need to evaluate the effects of hypothesized climate change on present and future projections on the potential distributions of each species of turtle, including its optimal habitat for aestivation (e.g., Butler et al., 2016). Undoubtedly current and future turtle conservation strategies would benefit from the future studies suggested here.
Data Availability
Supplementary information (S1 table1, S2 table2, S3 table3, S4 table4).
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Abe, A. S. (1995). Estivation in South American amphibians and reptiles. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 28, 1241–1247.
Ana, G., Ljiljana, T., & Ana, I. (2015). Geometry of self righting: The case of Hermann’s tortoises. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 254, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2014.12.003
Arad, Z. (1993). Effect of desiccation on the water economy of terrestrial gastropods of different phylogenetic origins: A prosobranch (Pomatias glaucus) and two pulmonates (Sphincterochila cariosa and Helix engaddensis). Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 39(2), 95–104.
Ascarrunz, E., & Sánchez-Villagra, M. R. (2022). The macroevolutionary and developmental evolution of the turtle carapacial scutes. Vertebrate Zoology, 72, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.3897/vz.72.e76256
Baker, F. C. (1934). A conchological Rip Van Winkle. Nautilus, 48, 5–6.
Barros, V., Melo, A., Santos, M., Nogueira, L., Frosi, G., & Santos, M. G. (2020). Different resource-use strategies of invasive and native woody species from a seasonally dry tropical forest under drought stress and recovery. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 147, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.12.018
Beaulieu, J., O'Meara, B., Oliver, J., & Boyko, J. (2021). corHMM: Hidden markov models of character evolution. R package version 2.6. Retrieved from November 2021 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=corHMM
Beaulieu, J. M., & Donoghue, M. J. (2013). Fruit evolution and diversification in campanulid angiosperms. Evolution, 67, 3132–3144. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12180
Beaulieu, J. M., Oliver, J. C., & O’Meara, B. C. (2017). corHMM: Analysis of binary character evolution. Retrieved from November 2021, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=corHMM
Berlant, Z. S., & Stayton, T. C. (2017). Shell morphology in the kinosternidae: Functional and evolutionary patterns. Herpetologica, 73, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1655/Herpetologica-D-15-00064
Berry, J. (1997). A model of plastral reduction in kinosternid turtles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Society of Ichthyology and Herpetology.
Boyer, D. R. (1965). Ecology of the basking habit in turtles. Ecology, 46, 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1935262
Boyko, J. D., & Beaulieu, J. M. (2021). Generalized hidden Markov models for phylogenetic comparative datasets. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13534
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644
Butler, C. J., Stanila, B. D., Iverson, J. B., Stone, P. A., & Bryson, M. (2016). Projected changes in climatic suitability for Kinosternon turtles by 2050 and 2070. Ecology and Evolution, 6(21), 7690–7705. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2492
Butterfield, T. G., Herrel, A., Olson, M. E., Contreras-Garduño, J., & Macip-Ríos, R. (2021). Morphology of the limb, shell and head explain the variation in performance and ecology across 14 turtle taxa (12 species). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 134(4), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blab117
Chessman, B. C. (1984). Evaporative water loss from three south-eastern Australian species of freshwater turtle. Australian Journal of Zoology, 32, 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9840649
Cordero, G. A., & Vlachos, E. (2021). Reduction, reorganization and stasis in the evolution of turtle shell elements. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 134, 892–911. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blab122
Costanzo, J. P., Litzgus, J. D., Iverson, J. B., & Lee, R. E., Jr. (2001). Cold hardiness and evaporative water loss in hatchling turtles. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 74, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1086/322161
Criscione, F., & Köhler, F. (2016). Snails in the desert: Assessing the mitochondrial and morphological diversity and the influence of aestivation behavior on lineage differentiation in the Australian endemic Granulomelon Iredale, 1933 (Stylommatophora: Camaenidae). Molecular Phylogenetics Evolution, 94, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2015.08.021
Derickson, W. K. (1976). Lipid storage and utilization in reptiles. American Zoologist, 16, 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12288
Dodd, C. (2001). North American box turtles. University of Oklahoma Press.
Domokos, G., & Várkonyi, P. L. (2008). Geometry and self-righting of turtles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1630), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1188
Emberton, K. C. (1994). Morphology and aestivation behaviour in some Madagascan acavid land snails. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 53(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1994.tb01008.x
Ernst, C., & Barbour, R. (1992). Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Finkler, M. S. (2001). Rates of water loss and estimates of survival time under varying humidity in juvenile snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Copeia, 2001, 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[0521:ROWLAE]2.0.CO;2
Fredrickson, E., Havstad, K. M., Estell, R., & Hyder, P. (1998). Perspectives on desertification: South-western United States. Journal of Arid Environments, 39, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0390
George, S. G. (2010). Alligator snapper stuck in the mud: evidence of aestivation. Reptiles & Amphibians, 17, 39.
Gibbons, J. W., Greene, J. L., & Congdon, J. D. (1983). Drought-related responses of aquatic turtle populations. Journal of Herpetology, 17, 242–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/1563826
Giokas, S., Pafilis, P., & Valakos, E. (2005). Ecological and physiological adaptations of the land snail Albinaria caerulea (Pulmonata: Clausiliidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 71(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/mollus/eyi001
Glass, M. L., Amin-Naves, J., & Da Silva, G. S. F. (2009). Aestivation in amphibians, reptiles, and lungfish. In M. Glass & S. Wood (Eds.), Cardio-respiratory control in vertebrates (pp. 179–189). Springer.
Gregory, P. T. (1982). Reptilian hibernation. In C. Gans & F. H. Pough (Eds.), Biology of the reptilia (Vol. 13, pp. 53–154). Academic Press.
Grigg, G. C., Johansen, K., Harlow, P., Beard, L. A., & Taplin, L. E. (1986). Facultative estivation in a tropical freshwater turtle Chelodina rugosa. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 83, 321–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(86)90582-7
Henen, B. T., Peterson, C. C., Wallis, I. R., Berry, K. H., & Nagy, K. A. (1998). Effects of climatic variation on field metabolism and water relations of desert tortoises. Oecologia, 117, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050669
Howey, C. A., & Dinkelacker, S. A. (2007). Macrochelys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle). Terrestrial refugium. Herpetological Review, 38, 333–334.
Hudson, N. J., & Franklin, C. E. (2002). Effect of estivation on muscle characteristics and locomotor performance in the green-striped burrowing frog, Cyclorana alboguttata. Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 172, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00360-001-0242-z
Ibáñez, A., Fritz, U., Auer, M., Martínez-Silvestre, A., Praschag, P., Załugowicz, E., Podkowa, D., & Pabijan, M. (2021). Evolutionary history of mental glands in turtles reveals a single origin in an aquatic ancestor and recurrent losses independent of macrohabitat. Science and Reports, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89520-w
Kennett, R., & Christian, K. (1994). Metabolic depression in estivating long-neck turtles (Chelodina rugosa). Physiological Zoology, 67, 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.67.5.30163883
Le Galliard, J. F., Chabaud, C., de Andrade, D. O. V., Brischoux, F., Carretero, M. A., Dupoué, A., Gavira, R. S. B., Lourdais, O., Sannolo, M., & Van Dooren, T. J. M. (2021). A worldwide and annotated database of evaporative water loss rates in squamate reptiles. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30(10), 1938–1950. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13355
Ledig, F. T., Rehfeldt, G. E., Sáenz-Romero, C., & Flores-López, C. (2010). Projections of suitable habitat for rare species under global warming scenarios. American Journal of Botany, 97(6), 970–987. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900329
Li, F. X., Liu, Y. H., Song, B. X., Sun, H. L., Zhang, X. L., & Gu, B. X. (1996). Study on aestivating habit of sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus Selenka: II Ecological characteristic of aestivation. Journal of Fishery Sciences of China, 3, 49–57.
Ligon, D. B., & Peterson, C. C. (2002). Physiological and behavioral variation in estivation in mud turtles (Kinosternon spp.). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 75, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/342000
Ligon, D. B., & Sotne, P. A. (2003). Radiotelemetry reveals terrestrial estivation in Sonoran mud turles (Kinosternon sonoriense). Journal of Herpetology, 37, 750–754. https://doi.org/10.1670/244-01N
Lyson, T. R., & Bever, G. S. (2020). Origin and evolution of the turtle body plan. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 51, 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-024746
Lyson, T. R., Rubidge, B. S., Scheyer, T. M., de Queiroz, K., Schachner, E. R., Smith, R. M., Botha-Brink, J., & Bever, G. S. (2016). Fossorial origin of the turtle shell. Current Biology, 26(14), 1887–1894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.020
Macip-Ríos, R., Jones, M. T., Willey, L. L., Akre, T. S., González-Akre, E., & Díaz-Gamboa, L. F. (2018). Population structure and natural history of Creaser’s mud turtle (Kinosternon creaseri) in Central Yucatán. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 13, 366–372.
Malcolm, J. R., Liu, C., Neilson, R. P., Hansen, L., & Hannah, L. E. E. (2006). Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00364.x
McKnight, D. T., & Ligon, D. B. (2020). Estivation site selection of western chicken turtles (Deirochelys reticularia miaria). The Southwestern Naturalist, 64(3–4), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-64.3-4.187
Morales-Verdeja, S. A., & Vogt, R. C. (1997). Terrestrial movements in relation to aestivation and the annual reproductive cycle of Kinosternon leucostomum. Copeia, 1997, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/1447847
Murphy, C. M., Tuberville, T. D., Maerz, J. C., & Andrews, K. M. (2016). Evaporative water loss rates of four species of aquatic turtles from the coastal plain of the southeastern United States. Journal of Herpetology, 50(3), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.1670/15-124
Navas, C. A., & Carvalho, J. E. (2010). Aestivation. Springer.
Orme, D., Freckleton, R., Thomas, G., Petzoldt, T., Fritz, S., Isaac, N., & Pearse, W. (2018). caper: Comparative Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R. R package version 1.0.1. Retrieved November 2021, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caper
Paradis, E., & Schliep, K. (2019). ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics, 35, 526–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633
Perrott, J. K., Levin, I. I., & Hyde, E. A. (2007). Morphology, distribution and desiccation in the brown garden snail (Cantareus aspersus) in northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 31, 60–67.
Peterson, C. C. (1996). Anhomeostasis: Seasonal water and solute relations in two populations of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) during chronic drought. Physiological Zoology, 69, 1324–1358. https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.69.6.30164263
Peterson, C. C., & Stone, P. A. (2000). Physiological capacity for estivation of the Sonoran mud turtle, Kinosternon sonoriense. Copeia, 2000, 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2000)000[0684:PCFEOT]2.0.CO;2
Plummer, M. V., Williams, B. K., Skiver, M. M., & Carlyle, J. C. (2003). Effects of dehydration on the critical thermal maximum of the desert box turtle (Terrapene ornata luteola). Journal of Herpetology, 37(4), 747–750. https://doi.org/10.1670/18-03N
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. v4.0.5. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Revell, L. J. (2012). phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3(2), 217–223.
Roe, J. H., Georges, A., & Green, B. (2008). Energy and water flux during terrestrial estivation and overland movement in a freshwater turtle. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 81, 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1086/589840
Roff, D. (2002). Life-history evolution. Sinauer.
Rose, F. L. (1980). Turtles in arid and semi-arid regions. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 61, 89.
Secor, S. M., & Lignot, J. H. (2010). Morphological plasticity of vertebrate aestivation. In C. Navas & J. Carvalho (Eds.), Aestivation: Molecular and physiological aspects (pp. 183–208). Springer.
Seidel, M. E. (1978). Terrestrial dormancy in the turtle Kinosternon flavescens: Respiratory metabolism and dehydration. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 61A, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(78)90265-7
Seidel, M. E., & Reynolds, S. L. (1980). Aspects of evaporative water loss in the mud turtles Kinosternon hirtipes and Kinosternon flavescens. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 67, 593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(80)90246-7
Silva, G. T. G., Nascimento, D. L., Batezelli, A., Ladeira, F. S. B., & Silva, M. L. (2022). Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) chelonian burrows preserved in floodplain deposits in the Bauru Basin of Brazil: Evidence for the fossorial origin of turtle shells. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol, 596, 110994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2022.110994
Stearns, S. (1992). The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press.
Steen, D. A., Sterrett, S. C., Miller, S. A., & Smith, L. L. (2007). Terrestrial movement and microhabitat selection of overwintering subadult Eastern Mud Turtles (Kinosternon subrubrum) in Southwest Georgia. Journal of Herpetology, 41, 532–535. https://doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2007)41[532:TMAMSO]2.0.CO;2
Stone, P. A., & Iverson, J. B. (1999). Cutaneous surface area in freshwater turtles. Chelonian Conservation Biology, 3, 512–515.
Symonds, M. R., & Moussalli, A. (2011). A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1037-6
Thomson, R. C., Spinks, P. Q., & Shaffer, H. B. (2021). A global phylogeny of turtles reveals a burst of climate-associated diversification on continental margins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2012215118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012215118
Ultsch, G. R. (1989). Ecology and physiology of hibernation and overwintering among freshwater fishes, turtles, and snakes. Biological Reviews, 64(4), 435–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1989.tb00683.x
Van Beurden, E. (1980). Energy metabolism of dormant Australian water-holding frogs (Cyclorana platycephala). Copeia, 1980, 787–799. https://doi.org/10.2307/1444458
Volaire, F., Barkaoui, K., Grémillet, D., Charrier, G., Dangles, O., Lamarque, L. J., Martin-StPaul, N., & Chuine, I. (2023). Is a seasonally reduced growth potential a convergent strategy to survive drought and frost in plants? Annals of Botany, 131(2), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcac153
Withers, P., & Cooper, C. (2010). Metabolic depression: a historical perspective. In C. Navas & J. Carvalho (Eds.), Aestivation: Molecular and physiological aspects (pp. 1–23). Springer.
Wygoda, M. L. (1979). Terrestrial activity of striped mud turtles, Kinosternon baurii (Reptilia, Testudines, Kinosternidae) in west-central Florida. Journal of Herpetology, 13(4), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.2307/1563484
Wygoda, M. L., & Chmura, C. M. (1990). Effects of shell closure on water loss in the Sonoran mud turtle, Kinosternon sonoriense. The Southwestern Naturalist, 35, 228–229.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank to Daniela Ceballos-Ramírez and Alberto Coronel Gaytán for their help gathering aestivation database. The following curators allowed us access to their collections: A. Resetar, J. Mata, and K. Angielczyk (FMNH); D. Kizirian, M. Arnold, D. Dickey, L. Vonnahme, and C. Raxworthy (AMNH); O. Flores-Villela, M. Pérez-Ramos (MZFC); V. Reynoso, A. Borgonio (IBUNAM); T. Giermakowski, C. Loughran (Museum of Southwestern Biology); F. Xiao, H. Shi (Hainan Normal University); S. Rogers (CM); G. Schneider (UMMZ); and S. Robson (NHMU). We thank the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología for supporting TB with a scholarship (No. 863562) throughout his studies. We are very grateful to John B. Iverson for his review and suggestions to improve this work.
Funding
This research was funded by DGAPA-PAPIIT (UNAM) Projects IN201921 and IA200418.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: RMR, ERG, TB; Data acquisition and analyses TB, RMR, ERG; Writing-original draft preparation: ERG; Writing-review and editing: RMR, ERG, TB; Funding acquisition: RMR. All authors read and contributed suggestions to the final draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Informed Consent
All authors consent to this submission.
Consent for Publication
All authors consent for publication.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Macip-Ríos, R., Butterfield, T. & Raya-García, E. How Aestivation Evolved in Turtles: A Macroevolutionary and Morphological Approach. Evol Biol 50, 381–394 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-023-09611-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-023-09611-6