Oecologia

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 145–157 | Cite as

Sexual selection versus alternative causes of sexual dimorphism in teiid lizards

  • Roger A. Anderson
  • Laurie J. Vitt
Original Papers

Summary

The presence and extent of sexual dimorphisms in body form (size and shape) of adult macroteiid lizards were investigated. Males were significantly larger than females in the temperate species, Cnemidophorus tigris, and in the tropical species, Ameiva ameiva and C. ocellifer. Young adult C. tigris males grew faster than young adult females within and between reproductive seasons. Adult males of all species had larger heads than adult females of the same body size; this difference increased with body size. Moreover, male C. tigris were heavier than females of the same snout-vent length. The causes and consequences of the sexual dimorphisms were also examined. The possible causes of body size are especially numerous, and distinguishing the relative influences of the various causal selection factors on body size is problematical. Nevertheless, observational field data were used to tentatively conclude that intrasexual selection was the cause of larger body size of C. tigris males relative to females because (1) larger males won in male aggressive interactions, (2) the winning males gained access to more females by repelling competitors and by female acceptance, (3) larger males consequently had higher reproductive success, and (4) other hypothetical causes of larger male size were unsupported.

Key words

Sexual dimorphism Sexual selection Intensive foraging Lizard 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander RD, Hoogland JL, Howard RD, Noonan K, Sherman PW (1979) Sexual dimorphisms and breeding systems in pinnipeds, ungulates, primates, and humans. In: Chagnon NA, Irons WG (eds) Evolutionary biology and human social behavior, an anthropological perspective. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts, pp 402–435Google Scholar
  2. Anderson RA (1986) Foraging behavior, energetics of reproduction, and sexual selection in a widely foraging lizard, Cnemidophorus tigris. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RA (1990) Analysis of foraging in the lizard, Cnemidophorus tigris: salient features and environmental effects. In: Wright JW (ed) Biology of Cnemidophorus. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Anderson RA, Karasov WH (1981) Contrasts in energy intake and expenditure in sit-and-wait and widely foraging lizards. Oecologia (Berl) 49:67–72Google Scholar
  5. Anderson RA, Karasov WH (1988) Energetics of the lizard Cnemidophorus tigris and life history consequences of food acquisition mode. Ecological Monographs 58:79–110Google Scholar
  6. Asplund KK (1968) Evolution of body size and habitat selection in whiptail lizards. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry JF, Shine R (1980) Sexual size dimorphism and sexual selection in turtles (Order Testudines). Oecologia 44:185–191Google Scholar
  8. Best TL, Pfaffenberger GS (1987) Age and sexual variation in the diet of collared lizards (Crotaphytus collaris). Southwestern Naturalist 32:415–426Google Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR, Johnson SD, Nettleship DN (1985) Extra-pair matings and mate guarding in the common murre Uria aalge. Animal Behaviour 33:608–619Google Scholar
  10. Blair WF (1960) The rusty lizard: a population study. University of Texas Press, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  11. Bostic DL (1966) A preliminary report of reproduction in the teiid lizard, Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi. Herpetologica 22:81–90Google Scholar
  12. Burkholder GL, Walker JM (1973) Habitat and reproduction of the desert whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus tigris Baird and Girard in southwestern Idaho at the northern part of its range. Herpetologica 29:76–83Google Scholar
  13. Carothers JH (1984) Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in some herbivorous lizards. American Naturalist 124:244–254Google Scholar
  14. Cheverud JM, Dow MM, Leutenegger W (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335–1351Google Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinnes FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Congdon JD, Vitt LJ, Hadley NF (1978) Parental investment: comparative reproductive energetics in bisexual and unisexual lizards, genus Cnemidophorus. American Naturalist 112:509–521Google Scholar
  17. Cooper WEJr (1977) Information analysis of agonistic behavioral sequences in the male iguanid Anolis carolinensis. Copeia 1977:721–735Google Scholar
  18. Cooper WEJr, Vitt LJ (1987) Deferred agonistic behavior in a long-lived sexually dimorphic scincid lizard Eumeces laticeps. Oecologia 77:321–326Google Scholar
  19. Cooper WEJr, Vitt LJ (1989) Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: paradoxical results. American Naturalist 133:729–735Google Scholar
  20. Cox CR (1983) Reproductive behaviour of sub-adult elephant seals: the cost of breeding. In: Aspey WP, Lustick SE (eds) Behavioral energetics: the cost of survival in vertebrates. Ohio University Press, Columbus, pp 89–115Google Scholar
  21. Cuellar O (1968) Additional evidence for true parthenogenesis in lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus. Herpetologica 24:146–150Google Scholar
  22. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. 2 Vols. Appleton Publ. Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Duellman WE (1960) Variation, distribution, and ecology of the Mexican teiid lizard Cnemidophorus caldipes. Copeia 1960:97–101Google Scholar
  24. Dugan B (1982) The mating behavior of the green iguana, Iguana iguana. In: Burghardt GM, Rand AC (eds) Iguanas of the world, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, pp 320–341Google Scholar
  25. Dunham AE (1981) Populations in a fluctuating environment: the comparative population ecology of Sceloporus merriami and Urosaurus ornatus. Miscellaneous Publications of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology 158:1–62Google Scholar
  26. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223Google Scholar
  27. Fitch HS (1981) Sexual size differences in reptiles. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publications 70:1–72Google Scholar
  28. Gadgil M, Bossert WH (1970) Life historical consequences of natural selection. American Naturalist 104:1–24Google Scholar
  29. Ghiselin MT (1974) The economy of nature and the evolution of sex. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibbons JW, Lovich J (1990) The significance of sexual dimorphism and sexual selection in the slider turtle. Herpetological Monographs 4:1–29Google Scholar
  31. Given MF (1988) Growth rate and the cost of calling activity in male carpenter frogs, Rana virgatipes. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 22:153–160Google Scholar
  32. Grant PR (1986) Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  33. Harwood RH (1979) The effect of temperature on the digestive efficiency of three species of lizards, Cnemidophorus tigris, Gerrhonotus multicarinatus, and Sceloporus occidentalis. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 63A:417–433Google Scholar
  34. Hedrick AV, Temeles EJ (1989) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animals: hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4:136–138Google Scholar
  35. Hirth HF (1963) The ecology of two lizards on a tropical beach. Ecological Monographs 33:83–112Google Scholar
  36. Howard RD (1981) Male age-size distribution and male mating success in bullfrogs. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW (eds) Natural Selection and Social Behavior: Recent Research and New Theory, Chiron Press, New York, pp 61–77Google Scholar
  37. Howard RD, Kluge AH (1985) Proximate mechanisms of sexual selection in wood frogs. Evolution 39:260–277Google Scholar
  38. Huey RB, Kingsolver JG (1989) Evolution of thermal sensitivity of ectotherm performance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4:131–135Google Scholar
  39. Karasov WH, Anderson RA (1984) Interhabitat differences in energy acquisition and expenditure in a lizard. Ecology 65:235–247Google Scholar
  40. Kennedy JP (1968) Observations on the ecology and behavior of Cnemidophorus guttatus and Cnemidophorus deppei (Sauria, Teiidae) in Southern Veracruz. Journal of Herpetology 2:87–96Google Scholar
  41. Lewis AR (1986) Body size and growth in two populations of the Puerto Rican ground lizard (Teiidae) Journal of Herpetology 20:190–195Google Scholar
  42. Lewis AR, Salvia JE (1987) Effects of size and sex on home range, dominance, and activity budgets in Ameiva exul (Lacertilia: Teiidae. Herpetologica 43:374–383Google Scholar
  43. Magnussen WE, De Paiva LJ, Da Rocha RM, Franke CR, Kasper LA, Lima AP (1985) The correlates of foraging mode in a community of lizards. Herpetologica 41:324–332Google Scholar
  44. McKinney F, Derrickson SR, Mineau P (1983) Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour 86:250–299Google Scholar
  45. Medica PA (1967) Food habits, habitat preference, reproduction, and diurnal activity in four sympatric species of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus) in south central New Mexico. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 66: 251–276Google Scholar
  46. Muller H (1971) Okophysiologische und okethologische Untersuchungen an Cnemidophorus lemniscatus L. (Reptilia: Teiidae) in Kolumbien, Forma et Functio 4:189–224Google Scholar
  47. Nagy KA (1983) Ecological energetics. In: Huey RB, Pianka ER, Schoener TW (ed) Lizard ecology: studies of a model organism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 24–54Google Scholar
  48. O'Neill KM, Evans HE (1983) Body size and alternative mating tactics in the beewolf, Philanthus zebratus (Hymenoptera; Specidae). Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 20:175–184Google Scholar
  49. Pianka ER (1966) Convexity, desert lizards, and spatial heterogeneity. Ecology 47:1055–1059Google Scholar
  50. Pianka ER, Parker WS (1975) Age-specific reproductive tactics. American Naturalist 109:453–464Google Scholar
  51. Powell GL, Russell AP (1985) Growth and sexual size dimorphism in Alberta populations of the eastern short-horned lizard, Phrynosoma douglassi brevirostre. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:139–154Google Scholar
  52. Price TD (1984) The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in Darwin's Finches. American Naturalist 123:500–518Google Scholar
  53. Ralls K (1976) Mammals in which females are larger than males. Quarterly Review of Biology 51:245–276Google Scholar
  54. Regal PJ (1978) Behavioral differences between reptiles and mammals: an analysis of activity and mental capacities. In: Greenberg N, MacLean PD (eds) Behavior and Neurology of lizards. National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA, pp 183–202Google Scholar
  55. Reiss MJ (1989) The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Rose B (1981) Factors affecting activity in Sceloporus virgatus. Ecology 62:706–716Google Scholar
  57. Ruby DE (1976) The behavioral ecology of the viviparous lizard, Sceloporus jarrovi. PhD dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruby DE (1978) Seasonal changes in the territorial behavior of the iguanid lizard Sceloporus jarrovi. Copeia 1978:430–438Google Scholar
  59. Ruby DE (1981) Phenotypic correlates of male reproductive success in the lizard Sceloporus jarrovi. In: Alexander RD, Tinkle DW (eds) Natural selection and social behavior. Chiron Press, New York, pp 96–107Google Scholar
  60. Ruby DE (1984) Male breeding success and differential access to females in Anolis carolinensis. Herpetologica 40:272–280Google Scholar
  61. Sandell M (1989) Ecological energetics, optimal body size and sexual size dimorphism: a model applied to the stoat, Mustela erminea L. Functional Ecology 3:315–324Google Scholar
  62. Schall JJ (1974) Population structure of the Aruban whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus arubensis, in varied habitats. Herpetologica 30:38–44Google Scholar
  63. Schall JJ (1978) Reproductive strategies in sympatric whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus): two parthenogenetic and three bisexual species. Copeia 1978:108–116Google Scholar
  64. Schall JJ (1983) Small clutch size in a tropical whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus arubensis). Journal of Herpetology 17:406–408Google Scholar
  65. schoener TW (1967) The ecological significance of sexual dimorphism in size in the lizard Anolis conspersus. Science 155:474–577Google Scholar
  66. Schoener TW (1968) The Anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49:704–726Google Scholar
  67. Schoener TW (1977) Competition and the niche. In Gans, C and Tinkle D (eds) Biology of the Reptilia. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 35–136Google Scholar
  68. Schoener TW (1979) Inferring the properties of predation and other injury-producing agents from injury frequencies. Ecology 60:1110–1115Google Scholar
  69. Schoener TW, Gorman GC (1968) Some niche differences in three lesser Antilean lizards of the genus Anolis. ecology 49:819–830Google Scholar
  70. Schoener TW, Schoener A (1978) Estimating and interpreting body-size growth in some Anolis lizards. Copeia 1978:390–405Google Scholar
  71. Schoener TW, Schoener A (1980) Densities, sex ratios, and population structure in four species of Bahamian Anolis lizards. Journal of Animal Ecology 49:19–53Google Scholar
  72. Schoener TW, Slade JB, Stinson CH (1982) Diet and sexual dimorphism in the very catholic lizard genus, Leiocephalus of the Bahamas. Oecologia 53:160–169Google Scholar
  73. Schwartz A (1970) A systematic review of Ameiva auberi Cocteau (Reptilia, Teiidae) in Cuba and the Bahamas. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 41:45–168Google Scholar
  74. Semlitsch RD, Gibbons JW (1982) Body size dimorphism and sexual selection in two species of water snakes. Copeia 1982:974–976Google Scholar
  75. Smith DC (1985) Home range and territory in the striped plateau lizard, Sceloporus virgatus. Animal Behaviour 33:417–427Google Scholar
  76. Smith RE (1968) Studies on reproduction in Costa Rican Ameiva festiva and Ameiva quadrilineata (Sauria: Teiidae). copeia 1968:236–239Google Scholar
  77. Stamps JA (1977) Social behavior and spacing patterns in lizards/ In: Gans C, Tinkle DW (eds) Biology of the Reptilia, Vol 7. Academic Press, London, pp 265–334Google Scholar
  78. Stamps JA (1983) Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism, and territoriality. In: Huey RB, Pianka ER, Schoener TW (eds) Lizard ecology: studies on a model organism. Jarvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 169–204Google Scholar
  79. Swain TA (1977) The autecology of two Venezuelan lizard species. PhD dissertation. University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  80. Trillmich KGK (1983) The mating system of the marine iguana, Amblyrhynchus cristatus). Zoologische Tierpsychologie 63:141–172Google Scholar
  81. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1979. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  82. Trivers RL (1976) Sexual selection and resource-accruing abilities in Anolis garmani. Evolution 30:253–269Google Scholar
  83. Vitt LJ (1982) Reproductive tractics of Ameiva ameiva (Lacertilia: Teiidae) in a seasonally fluctuating tropical habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:3113–3120Google Scholar
  84. Vitt LJ (1983) Reproduction and sexual dimorphism in the tropical teiid lizard, Cnemidophorus ocellifer. Copeia 1983:359–366Google Scholar
  85. Vitt LJ, Breitenbach GL (1990) Life histories and reproductive tactics among lizards in the genus Cnemidophorus (Sauria: Teiidae). In: Wright, JW (ed) Biology of Cnemidophorus. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles (in press)Google Scholar
  86. Vitt LJ, Cooper WE Jr (1985) The evolution of sexual dimorphism in the skink Eumeces laticeps: an example of sexual selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:995–1002Google Scholar
  87. Vitt LJ, Goldberg SR (1983) Reproductive ecology of two tropical iguanid lizards: Tropidurus torquatus and Platynotus semitaeniatus. Copeia 1983:131–141Google Scholar
  88. Walker JM (1970) Morphological variation and clutch size in a population of Cnemidophorus lineatissimus Cope, in Michoacan, Mexico. Herpetologica 26:359–365Google Scholar
  89. Walker JM (1981) Population structure and reproductive characteristics in Cnemidophorus parvisocius (Lacertilia: Teiidae). American Midland Naturalist 105:217–224Google Scholar
  90. Walker JM (1982) Reproductive characteristics of the Colima giant whiptail Cnemidophorus communis communis Cope. Southwestern Naturalist 27:241–243Google Scholar
  91. Walker JM (1983) Variation and systematic relationships of the San Pedro Martir whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus martyris Stejneger, Teiidae). Southwestern Naturalist 28:1–8Google Scholar
  92. Willig MR (1983) Composition, microgeographic variation, and sexual dimorphism in caatingas and cerrado bat communities from northeastern Brazil. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 23:1–131Google Scholar
  93. Woolbright LL (1989) Sexual dimorphism in Eleutherodactylus cocqui: selection pressures and growth rates. Herpetologica 45:68–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger A. Anderson
    • 1
  • Laurie J. Vitt
    • 2
  1. 1.Savannah River Ecology LaboratoryDrawer EAikenUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations