Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 849–863 | Cite as

Responses to prey chemicals by a lacertid lizard,Podarcis muralis: Prey chemical discrimination and poststrike elevation in tongue-flick rate

  • William E. CooperJr.
Article

Abstract

The ability to discriminate prey chemicals from control substances and the presence of a poststrike elevation in tongue-flicking (PETF) rate are experimentally demonstrated in the lacertid lizard,Podarcis muralis, The tongue-flick attack score, a composite index of response strength, was significantly higher in response to integumental chemicals from cricket than to cologne or distilled water. The cricket chemicals additionally elicited a significantly greater rate of tongue-flicking and higher proportion of attacks by the lizards than did control stimuli. PETF combined with apparent searching movements strongly suggest the presence of strike-induced chemosensory searching (SICS). Experimental evidence indicates that both PETF and SICS occur in insectivorous representatives of three families of actively foraging autarchoglossan lizards, suggesting their widespread occurrence in such lizards. The adaptive roles of chemosensory behavior in the foraging behavior of P.Muralis are discussed. It is proposed that these lizards may form chemical search images and that PETF and SICS may have been present in the lacertilian ancestors of snakes.

Key words

Prey chemicals tongue-flicking feeding behavior Reptilia Lacertidae Podarcis muralis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burghardt, G.M. 1970. Chemical perception in reptiles, pp. 241–308,in J.W. Johnston, D.G. Moulton, and A. Turk (eds.). Advances in Chemoreception, Vol. I. Communication by Chemical Signals. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Burghardt, G.M. 1973. Chemical release of prey attack: Extension to naive newly hatched lizards,Eumeces fasciatus.Copeia 1973:178–181.Google Scholar
  3. Chiszar, D., andScudder, K.M. 1980. Chemosensory searching by rattlesnakes during predatory episodes, pp. 125–139,in D. Muller-Schwarze and R.M. Silverstein (eds.). Chemical Signals: Vertebrates and Aquatic Invertebrates. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Chiszar, D., Radcliffe, C.W., O'Connell, B., andSmith, H.M. 1982. Analysis of the behavioral sequence emitted by rattlesnakes during predatory episodes. II. Duration of strike-induced chemosensory searching in rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis, C. enyo).Behav. Neural Biol. 34:261–270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiszar, D. Radcliffe, C.W., Overstreet, R., Poole, andByers, T. 1985. Duration of strike-induced chemosensory searching in cottonmouthsAgkistrodon piscivorus and a test of the hypothesis that striking prey creates a specific search image.Can J. Zool. 63:1057–1061.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1989a. Absence of prey odor discrimination by iguanid and agamid lizards in applicator tests.Copeia 1989:472–478.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1989b. Prey odor discrimination in the varanoid lizardsHeloderma suspectum andVaranus exanthematicus.Ethology 81:250–258.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1989c. Strike-induced chemosensory searching occurs in lizards.J. Chem. Ecol. 15:1311–1320.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1990a. Prey odor detection by teiid and lacertid lizards and the relationship of prey odor detection to foraging mode in lizard families.Copeia 1990:237–242.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1990b. Prey odour discrimination by lizards and snakes, pp. 533–538,in D.W. Macdonald, D. Müller-Schwarze, and S.E. Natynczuk (eds.). Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford. In press.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1990c. Prey odor discrimination by anguid lizards.Herpetologica 46:183–190.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, W.E.,Jr. Prey odor discrimination and poststrike elevation in tongue-flicking by a cordylid lizard,Gerrhosaurus nigrolineatus. In press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, W.E., Jr., andAlberts, A.C. 1990. Responses to chemical food stimuli by an herbivorous actively foraging lizard,Dipsosaurus dorsalis.Herpetologica 46:259–266.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, W.E., Jr., andAlberts, A.C. 1991. Tongue-flicking and biting in response to chemical food stimuli by an iguanid lizard (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) having sealed vomeronasal ducts: Vomerolfaction may mediate these behavioral responses.J. Chem. Ecol. 17:135–146.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, W.E., Jr., andBurghardt, G.M. 1990a. A comparative analysis of scoring methods for chemical discrimination of prey by squamate reptiles.J. Chem. Ecol. 16:45–65.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, W.E., Jr., andBurghardt, G.M. 1990b. Vomerolfaction and vomodor.J. Chem. Ecol. 16:103–105.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, W.E., Jr., andVitt, L.J. 1986. Thermal dependence of tongue-flicking and comments on use of tongue-flicking as an index of squamate behavior.Ethology 71:177–186.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, W.E., Jr., andVitt, L.J. 1989. Prey odor discrimination by the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps).J. Exp. Zool. 249:11–16.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, W.E., Jr., McDowell, S.G., andRuffer, J. 1989. Strike-induced chemosensory searching in the colubrid snakesElaphe g. guttata andThamnophis sirtalis.Ethology 81:19–28.Google Scholar
  20. Dial, B.E. 1978. Aspects of the behavioral ecology of two Chihuahuan desert geckos (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Gekkonidae).J. Herpetol. 12:209–216.Google Scholar
  21. Dial, B.E., Weldon, P.J., andCurtis, B. 1989. Predator-prey signals: Chemosensory identification of snake predators by gekkonid lizards and its ecological consequences.J. Herpetol. 23:224–229.Google Scholar
  22. Estes, R., Queiroz, K. De, andGauthier, J. 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata, pp. 119–281,in R. Estes and G. Pregill (eds.). Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families, Essays Commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  23. Frost, D.R., andEtheridge, R. 1989. A phylogenetic analysis and taxonomy of iguanian lizards (Reptilia: Squamata).Misc. Publ. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. 81:1–65.Google Scholar
  24. Graves, B.M., andHalpern, M. 1990. Vomeronasal organ chemoreception in tongue-flicking, exploratory and feeding behaviour of the lizard,Chalcides ocellatus.Anim. Behav. 39:692–698.Google Scholar
  25. Halpern, M. 1991. Nasal chemical senses in reptiles: Structure and function, pp. xxx-xxx,in D. Crews and C. Gans (eds.). Biology of the Reptilia, Vol. 18, Physiology and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. In press.Google Scholar
  26. Halpern, M., andFrumin, N. 1979. Roles of the vomeronasal and olfactory systems in prey attack and feeding in adult garter snakes.Physiol. Behav. 22:1183–1189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Halpern, M., andKubie, J.L. 1980. Chemical access to the vomeronasal organs of garter snakes.Physiol. Behav. 24:367–371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollander, A., andWolfe, D.A. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Huey, R.B., andPianka, E.R. 1981. Ecological consequences of foraging mode.Ecology 62:991–999.Google Scholar
  30. Kahmann, H. 1939. Uber das Jakobsonische Organ der Echsen.Z. Vergl. Physiol. 26:669–695.Google Scholar
  31. Krekorian, C.O. 1989. Field and laboratory observations on chemoreception in the desert iguana.J. Herpetol. 23:267–273.Google Scholar
  32. Loop, M.S., andScoville, S.A. 1972. Response of newbornEumeces inexpectatus to prey-object extracts.Herpetologica 28:254–256.Google Scholar
  33. Nicoletto, P.F. 1985. The roles of vision and the chemical senses in predatory behavior of the skink,Scincella lateralis.J. Herpetol. 19:487–491.Google Scholar
  34. Pedersen, J.M. 1988. Laboratory observations on the function of tongue extrusion in the desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis).J. Comp. Psychol. 102:193–196.Google Scholar
  35. Regal, P.J. 1978. Behavioral differences between reptiles and mammals: An analysis of activity and mental capabilities, pp. 183–202,in N. Greenberg and P.D. MacLean (eds.). Behavior and Neurobiology of Lizards. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  36. Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Simon, C.A. 1983. A Review of Lizard Chemoreception, pp. 119–133 and 443–447,in R.B. Huey, E.R. Pianka, and T.W. Schoener (eds.). Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model Organism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Simon, C.A., Gravelle, K., Bissinger, B.E., Eiss, I., andRuibal, R. 1981. The role of chemoreception in the iguanid lizardSceloporus jarrovi.Anim. Behav. 29:46–54.Google Scholar
  39. Van Damme, R., Bauwens, D., Vanderstighelen, D., andVerheyen, R.F. 1990. Responses of the lizardLacerta vivipara to predator chemical cues: The effects of temperature.Anim. Behav. 40:298–305.Google Scholar
  40. Vitt, L.J., andPrice, H.J. 1982. Ecological and evolutionary determinants of relative clutch mass in lizards.Herpetologica 38:237–255.Google Scholar
  41. Von Achen, P.L., andRakestraw, J.L. 1984. The Role of Chemoreception in the Prey Selection of Neonate Reptiles, pp. 163–172,in R.A. Seigel, L.E. Hunt, J.L. Knight, L. Malaret, and N.L. Zuschlag (eds.). Vertebrate Ecology and Systematics-A Tribute to Henry S. Fitch. Special Publication, University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  42. Winer, B.J. 1962. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. CooperJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyAuburn University at MontgomeryMontgomery

Personalised recommendations