, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 351–360 | Cite as

Home ranges of horned lizards (Phrynosoma): circumscribed and exclusive?

  • James C. Munger
Original Papers


Two aspects of the use of space were studied for two species of horned lizard: (1) Do they restrict their movements to limited areas or do they wander more or less randomly? (2) Is overlap between home ranges reduced below what it would be if home ranges were placed at random with respect to one another?

Forty-nine individuals were tagged with radiotransmitters or radioactive tags and their movements compared to a computer-generated random model. It was found that horned lizards typically occupy areas much smaller than they would if they moved randomly, that is, they occupy a limited home range. “Home ranges” calculated from location points generated by computer randomizations share several characteristics with the limited home ranges of lizards not moving randomly. Randomly derived location points can be surrounded by a minimum convex polygon, or characterized by a probability density function or utilization distribution, and lead to a percent-change in area vs. capture number curve very similar to that shown by lizards not moving randomly. Therefore, none of these techniques distringuishes between home ranges that result from nonrandom use of space and those that result from a randomly moving animal. Previous studies have failed to draw the distinction between these two types of home range. This distinction should be recognized, however, because the underlying processes differ so dramatically.

Observed home range overlap was compared with overlap that would be expected if home ranges were located at random with respect to one another. In one of the years tested, reduced overlap was detected at a marginally significant level. This pattern becomes stronger if only overlap with conspecifics is considered. This strongly suggests that home range overlap is reduced between horned lizards. Contrary to expectation, overlap between individuals of opposite sex tended to be less than overlap between individuals of the same sex.


Density Function Probability Density Probability Density Function Home Range Location Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams L, SD Davis (1967) The internal anatomy of home range. J Mammal 48:529–536Google Scholar
  2. Anderson DJ (1982) The home range: a new nonparametric estimation technique. Ecology 63:103–112Google Scholar
  3. Baharav D (1975) Movement of the horned lizard, Phrynosoma solare. Copeia 1975:649–657Google Scholar
  4. Bostic DL (1965) Home range of the teiid lizard Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi Southwest Nat 10:278–281Google Scholar
  5. Brown JH (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–169Google Scholar
  6. Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:344–352Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter CC (1967) Aggression and social structure in iguanid lizards. In: Milstead WW (ed) Lizard ecology: a symposium. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, USA pp 87–105Google Scholar
  8. Cooper WE (1978) Home range criteria based on temporal stability of areal occupation. J Theor Biol 73:687–695PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dice LR, Clark PJ (1953) The statistical concept of home range as applied to the recapture radius of the deermouse (Peromyscus). Contributions of the Laboratory of Vertebrate Zoology, No. 62:1–23, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferner JW (1974) Home range size and overlap in Sceloporus undulatus erythrocheilus (Reptilia: Iguanidae). Copeia 1974:332–337Google Scholar
  11. Fitch HS, Achen PL von (1977) Spatial relationships and seasonality in the skinks Eumeces fasciatus and Scincella laterale in Northeastern Kansas. Herpetologica 33:303–313Google Scholar
  12. Ford RG, Krumme DW (1979) The analysis of space use patterns. J Theor Biol 76:125–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Getty T (1981) Structure and dynamics of chipmunk home range. J Mammal 60:726–737Google Scholar
  14. Jewell PA (1966) The concept of home range in mammals. Symp Zool Soc London 18:85–109Google Scholar
  15. Jorgensen CD, Tanner WW (1963) The application of the density probability function to determine the home ranges of Uta stansburiana and Cnemidophorus tigris tigris. Herpetologica 19:105–115Google Scholar
  16. Krekorian CO (1976) Home range size and overlap and their relationship to food abundance in the desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis. Herpetologica 32:405–412Google Scholar
  17. Lowe CH (1954) Normal field movements and growth rates of marked regal horned lizards (Phrynosoma solare). Ecology 35:420–421Google Scholar
  18. Lynn RT (1965) A comparative study of display behavior, in Phrynosoma. Southwest Nat 10:25–30Google Scholar
  19. Mares, MA, Willig MR, Bitar NA (1980) Home range size in eastern chipmunks Tamias striatus, as a function of number of captures: statistical biases of inadequate sampling. J Mammal 61:661–669Google Scholar
  20. Milne LJ, Milne MJ (1950) Notes on the behavior, of horned toads. Am Midl Nat 44:720–741Google Scholar
  21. Milstead WW (1957) Observations on the natural history of four species of whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus (Sauria, Teiidae) in Trans-Pecos. Texas. Southwest Nat 2:105–121Google Scholar
  22. Munger JC (1982) Strategies of predators and their prey: optimal foraging and home range behavior of horned lizards (Phrynosoma spp.) and response of harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex desertorum) Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Munger JC (1984a) Long-term yield from harvester ant colonies: implications for horned lizard foraging strategy. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar
  24. Munger JC (1984b) Optimal foraging?: patch use by horned lizards (Iguanidae: Phrynosoma). Am Nat (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Munger JC, Brown JH (1981) Competition in desert rodents: an experiment with semipermeable exclosures. Science 211:510–512Google Scholar
  26. Pianka ER, Parker WS (1975) Ecology of horned lizards: a review with special reference to Phrynosoma platyrhinos. Copeia 1975:141–162Google Scholar
  27. Pianka ER, Pianka HD (1970) The ecology of Moloch horridus (Lacertilia: Agamidae) in Western Australia. Copeia 1970:90–103Google Scholar
  28. Rissing SW (1981) Prey preferences in the desert horned lizard: influence of prey foraging method and aggressive behavior. Ecology 61:1031–1040Google Scholar
  29. Ruby DE (1978) Seasonal changes in the territorial behavior of the iguanid lizard Sceloporus jarrovi. Copeia 1978:430–438Google Scholar
  30. Schoener TW (1981) An empirically based estimate, of home range. Theor Popul Biol 20:281–325Google Scholar
  31. Shaffer DJ, Whitford WG (1981) Behavioral responses of a predator, the round-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma modestum, and its prey, honey pot ants, Myrmecocystus spp. Am Midl Nat 105:209–216Google Scholar
  32. Sherbrooke WC (1981) Horned lizards. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association. Globe, Arizona, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon CA (1975) The influence of food abundance on territory size in the iguanid lizard Sceloporus jarrovi. Ecology 56:993–998Google Scholar
  35. Southwood TRE (1966) Ecological methods. Methuen & Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Speth RL (1969) Social structure of small mammals at the National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho. Ph.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Stebbins RC (1966) A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co, BostonGoogle Scholar
  39. Tanner WW, Krogh JE (1973) Ecology of Phrynosoma platyrhinos at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Herpetologica 29:327–342Google Scholar
  40. Tinkle DW, McGregor D, Dana S (1962) Home range ecology of Uta stansburiana Stejnegeri. Ecology 43:223–229Google Scholar
  41. Tollestrup K (1981) The social behavior and displays of two species of horned lizards, Phrynosoma platyrhinos and Phrynosoma coronatum Herpetologica 37:130–141Google Scholar
  42. Van Winkle W (1975) Comparison of several probabilistic homerange models. J Wildl Mgmt 39:118–123Google Scholar
  43. Whitford WG, Bryant M (1979) Behavior of a predator and its prey: the horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) and harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.). Ecology 60:686–694Google Scholar
  44. Whitford WG, Ettershank G (1975) Factors affecting foraging activity in Chihuahuan desert harvester ants. Environ Entomol 4:689–694Google Scholar
  45. Whitford WB, Whitford WG (1973) Combat in the horned lizard, Phrynosoma cornutum. Herpetologica 29:191–192Google Scholar
  46. Zach R, Falls JB (1978) Bivariate normal song territories in ovenbirds. Can J Zool 56:1088–1092Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • James C. Munger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations