Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 192–200 | Cite as

Sexual Selection and Dynamics of Jaw Muscle in Tupinambis Lizards

  • Sergio Naretto
  • Gabriela Cardozo
  • Cecilia S. Blengini
  • Margarita Chiaraviglio
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Sexual dimorphism patterns provide an opportunity to increase our understanding of trait evolution. Because selective forces may vary throughout the reproductive period, measuring dimorphism seasonally may be an interesting approach. An increased male head size may be important in intersexual and intrasexual interactions. In Tupinambis lizards, a big head is attributed in part to a large adductor muscle mass. Competition for mating can differ in species with different sex ratio and different degrees of sexual size dimorphism. We examined sexual differences in mass of the pterygoideus muscle, its temporal variation throughout the reproductive period and the relationship between muscle and reproductive condition in Tupinambis merianae and T. rufescens. We characterized sexual size dimorphism and sex ratio in both species. Mature males had larger jaw muscles than mature females in both species, mainly during the reproductive season. The dimorphism in jaw muscle was due to an increase in muscle mass in sexually active males. Seasonal increases in muscle mass and variation between immature and mature individuals suggest that the jaw muscle might be a secondary sexual character. We propose that the pterygoideus muscle may act as a signal of reproductive condition of males because it is associated with testis size and sperm presence. The patterns of sexual dimorphism in jaw muscle in both species were similar; however, the comparison shows how sexual characters remain dimorphic in different competition contexts and in species with different degrees of body size dimorphism. Our results suggest that jaw muscle as sexual character could be influenced by inter- and intrasexual selective pressures.

Keywords

Secondary sexual character Sexual dimorphism Seasonal variation Pterygoideus muscle Tupinambis merianae Tupinambis rufescens 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to rural people from the study area for their invaluable assistance in the field, especially Carlos Beck of Villa del Rosario, Cordoba. This study was funded by Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (FONCyT), MinCyT Córdoba -Préstamo BID-PID No. 013/2009, Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnología (SeCyT) and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. SN and CB are students of the Biological Doctorate of the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba and fellowship holders of the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). GC is a researcher of the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). MCH is Professor and senior scientist of the National University of Cordoba. The authors thank anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on previous versions of the manuscript.

Ethical standards

The authors declare that this paper comply with the current laws of Argentina.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahnesjö, I., Kvarnemo, C., & Merilaita, S. (2001). Using potential reproductive rates to predict mating competition among individuals qualified to mate. Behavioral Ecology, 12(4), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. A., McBrayer, L. D., & Herrel, A. (2008). Bite force in vertebrates: Opportunities and caveats for use of a nonpareil whole-animal performance measure. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93(4), 709–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. A., & Vitt, L. J. (1990). Sexual selection versus alternative causes of sexual dimorphism in teiid lizards. Oecologia, 84(2), 145–157.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Andrade, D. V., & Abe, A. S. (1999). Gas exchange and ventilation during dormancy in the tegu lizard Tupinambis merianae. Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, 3677–3685.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Araujo, M. B., & Tschinkel, W. R. (2010). Worker allometry in relation to colony size and social form in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta. Journal of Insect Science, 2010, 1–10.Google Scholar
  7. Avila-Pires, T. C. (1995). Lizards of Brazilian Amazonia (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden, 299, 546–564.Google Scholar
  8. AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) (2007). Guidelines on euthanasia. Formely report of the AVMA panel on euthanasia. http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf.
  9. Berglund, A., Bisazza, A., & Pilastro, A. (1996). Armaments and ornaments: An evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 58(4), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonduriansky, R. (2007). Sexual selection and allometry: A critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution, 61(4), 838–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braña, F. (1996). Sexual dimorphism in lacertid lizards: Male head increase vs. female abdomen increase? Oikos, 75(3), 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bull, C. M., & Pamula, Y. (1996). Sexually dimorphic head sizes and reproductive success in the sleepy lizard Tiliqua rugosa. Journal of Zoology, 240(3), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, M. A., & Losos, J. B. (2002). Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecological Monographs, 72(4), 541–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butler, M. A., Schoener, T. W., & Losos, J. B. (2000). The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution, 54(1), 259–272.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cabaña, I., Gardenal, C. N., Chiaraviglio, M., & Rivera, P. C. (2013). Natural hybridization in lizards of the genus Tupinambis (Teiidae) in the southernmost contact zone of their distribution range. Annales Zoologici Fennici (in press).Google Scholar
  16. Cardozo, G., & Chiaraviglio, M. (2011). Phenotypic plasticity of life history traits in relation to reproductive strategies in Boa constrictor occidentalis. Evolutionary Ecology, 25(5), 1163–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardozo, G., Naretto, S., Zak, M., & Chiaraviglio, M. (2012). The role of landscape in contact zones of sister species of lizards. In J. Tiefenbacher (Ed.), Perspective on nature conservation—patterns, pressures and prospects (pp. 161–176). Croatia: Intech.Google Scholar
  18. Cei, J. M. (1993). Reptiles del Noroeste, Nordeste y Este de la Argentina. Herpetofauna de las Selvas Subtropicales, Puna y Pampas. Torino: Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Monografie XIV.Google Scholar
  19. Chamut, S., Jahn, G. A., Arce, O. E. A., & Manes, M. E. (2012). Testosterone and reproductive activity in the male Tegu lizard, Tupinambis merianae. Herpetological and Conservation Biology, 7(3), 299–305.Google Scholar
  20. Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Vincent, A. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 58–60.Google Scholar
  21. Colli, J., Peres, A. K., Jr, & Da Cunha, H. J. (1998). A new species of Tupinambis (Sauria, Teiidae) from central Brazil. Herpetologica, 54(4), 477–492.Google Scholar
  22. Cooper, W. E., & Vitt, L. J. (1989). Sexual dimorphism of head and body size in an iguanid lizard: Paradoxical results. The American Naturalist, 133(5), 729–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper, W. E., & Vitt, L. J. (1993). Female mate choice of male large broad-headed skinks. Animal Behaviour, 45(4), 683–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corl, A., Davis, A. R., Kuchta, S. R., Comendant, T., & Sinervo, B. (2009). Alternative mating strategies and the evolution of sexual size dimorphism in the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansbiriana: A population level comparatives analysis. Evolution, 64(1), 79–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cox, R. M., Butler, M. A., & John-Alder, H. B. (2007). The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles. In D. J. Fairbairn, W. U. Blanckenhorn, & T. Szekely (Eds.), Sex, size and gender roles: Evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism (pp (pp. 38–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cox, R. M., Skelly, S. L., & John-Alder, H. B. (2003). A comparative test of adaptative hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution, 57(7), 1653–1669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Darwin, C. R. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Jong, K., Wacker, S., Amundsen, T., & Forsgren, E. (2009). Do operational sex ratio and density affect mating behaviour? An experiment on the two-spotted goby. Animal Behaviour, 78(5), 1229–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dial, K. P., Greene, E., & Irschick, D. J. (2008). Allometry of behavior. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(7), 394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fitch, H. S. (1981). Sexual size differences in reptiles. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Natural History University Kansas, 70, 1–72.Google Scholar
  31. Fitzgerald, L. A., Chani, J. M., & Donadio, O. E. (1991). Tupinambis lizards in Argentina: implementing management of a traditionally exploited resource. In J. Robinson & K. Redford (Eds.), Neotropical wildlife: Use and conservation (pp. 303–316). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Fitzgerald, L. A., Cruz, F. B., & Perotti, G. (1993). The reproductive cycle and the size of maturity of Tupinambis rufescens (Sauria: Teiidae) in the Dry Chaco of Argentina. Journal of Herpetology, 27(1), 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gvozdik, L., & Van Damme, R. (2003). Evolutionary maintenance of sexual dimorphism in head size in the lizard Zootoca vivipara: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Zoology, 259(1), 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hendrick, A. V., & Temeles, E. J. (1989). The evolution of sexual dimorphism in animal: Hypotheses and tests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 4(5), 136–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hendry, P. H., & Berg, O. K. (1999). Secondary sexual characters, energy use, senescence, and the cost of reproduction in sockeye salmon. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(11), 1663–1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henningsen, J. P., & Irshick, D. J. (2012). An experimental test of the effect of signal size and performance capacity on dominance in the green anole lizard. Funtional Ecology, 26(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herrel, A., Andrade, D. V., de Carvalho, J. E., Brito, A., Abe, A., & Navas, C. (2009). Aggressive behavior and performance in the Tegu Lizard Tupinambis merianae. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 82(6), 680–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Herrel, A. Van., Damme, R., & De Vree, F. (1996). Sexual dimorphism of head size in Podarcis hispanica atrata: testing the dietary divergence hypothesis by bite force analysis. Netherlands Journal of Zoology, 46(3), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Herrel, A., De Grauw, E., & Lemos-Espinal, J. A. (2001). Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 290(2), 101–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herrel, A., Spithoven, L., Van Damme, R., & De Vree, F. (1999). Sexual dimorphism of head size in Gallotia galloti: Testing the niche divergence hypothesis by functional analyses. Funtional Ecology, 13(3), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hews, D. (1990). Examining hypotheses generated by field measures of sexual selection on male lizards. Uta palmeri. Evolution, 44(8), 1956–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hews, D. K. (1996). Size and scaling of sexually-selected traits in the lizard Uta palmeri. Journal of Zoology, 238(4), 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Husak, J. F., Lappin, A. K., Fox, S. F., & Lemos-Espinal, J. A. (2006). Bite force performance predicts dominance in male venerable collared lizards (Crotaphytus antiquus). Copeia, 2006(2), 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huyghe, K., Husak, J. F., Moore, I. T., Vanhooydonck, B., Van Damme, R., Molina-Borja, M., et al. (2010). Effects of testosterone on morphology, performance and muscle mass in a lizard. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 313, 9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huyghe, K., Vanhooydonck, B., Scheers, H., Molina-Borja, M., & Van Damme, R. (2005). Morphology, performance and fighting capacity in male lizards, Gallotia galloti. Functional Ecology, 19(5), 800–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Irschick, D. J., Herrel, A., Vanhooydonck, B., & Van Damme, R. (2007). A functional approach to sexual selection. Functional Ecology, 21, 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Irschick, D. J., Ramos, M., Buckley, C., Elstrott, J., Carlisle, E., Lailvaux, S. P., et al. (2006). Are morphology performance relationships invariant across different seasons? A test with the green anole lizard (Anolis carolinensis). Oikos, 114(1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaliontzopoulou, A., Carretero, M. A., & Llorente, G. A. (2008). Head shape allometry and proximate causes of head sexual dimorphism in Podarcis lizards: Joining linear and geometric morphometrics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kodric-Brown, A., Sibly, M. R., & Brown, J. H. (2006). The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proccedings of the National Academy of Science of the United state of America, 103(23), 8733–8738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kratochvil, L., Fokt, M., Rehák, I., & Frinta, D. (2003). Misinterpretation of character scaling: A tale of sexual dimorphism in body shape of common lizards. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81(6), 1112–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kvarnemo, C., & Ahnesjö, I. (1996). The dynamics of operational sex ratios and competition for mates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(10), 404–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kvarnemo, C., & Merilaita, S. (2006). Mating distribution and its temporal dynamics affect operational sex ratio: A simulation study. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 89(3), 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lailvaux, S., Herrel, A., Vanhooydonck, B., Meyers, J., & Irschick, D. J. (2004). Performance capacity, fighting tactics, and the evolution of life-stage morphs in the green anole lizard (Anolis carolinensis). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 271(1556), 2501–2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lailvaux, S., & Irschick, D. J. (2006). A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects. Animal Behaviour, 72(2), 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lappin, A. K., & Husak, J. F. (2005). Weapon performance, not size, determines mating success and potential reproductive output in the collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris). The American Naturalist, 166(3), 426–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lovich, J. E., & Gibbons, J. W. (1992). A review of techniques for quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth, Development, and Aging, 56(4), 269–281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Madsen, T., Ujvari, B., Shine, R., & Olsson, M. (2006). Rain, rats and phytons: Climate driven population dynamics of predators and prey in tropical Australia. Austral Ecology, 31(1), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Malo, A. F., Roldan, E. R. S., Garde, J., Soler, J., & Gomendio, M. (2005). Antlers honestly advertise sperm production and quality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 149–157.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McBrayer, L. D., & White, T. D. (2002). Bite force, behavior, and electromyography in the teiid lizard, Tupinambis Teguixin. Copeia, 2002(1), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Molina Borja, M., Padron Fumero, M., & Alfonso Martin, T. (1998). Morphological and behavioural traits affecting the intensity and outcome of male contests in Gallotia galloti galloti (Family Lacertidae). Ethology, 104(4), 314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moller, A. P. (1996). The cost of secondary sexual characters and the evolution of cost-reducing traits. Ibis, 138(1), 112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mowles, S. L., & Ord, T. J. (2012). Repetitive signals and mate choice: Insights from contest theory. Animal Behaviour, 84(2), 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Olsson, M. (1993). Male preference for large females and assortative mating for body size in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32, 337–341.Google Scholar
  64. Petrie, M. (1992). Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Animal Behaviour, 43(1), 173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Porini, G. M. (2006). Proyecto Tupinambis, una propuesta para el manejo de Tupinambis rufescens y T. merianae en la Argentina. In M.L. Bolkovic & D. Ramadori (Eds.), Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en la Argentina. Programas de uso sustentable (pp. 65–75). Buenos Aires: Dirección de Fauna Silvestre, Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable.Google Scholar
  66. Pough, F. H., Andrews, R., Cadle, J., Crump, M., Savitzhy, A., & Wells, K. (2001). Herpetology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  67. Resolución No 11/2011. Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación. Boletín Oficial No 32304.Google Scholar
  68. Rieppel, O. (1980). The trigeminal jaw adductor musculature of Tupinambis, with comments on the phylogenetic relationships of the Teiidae (Reptilia, Lacertilia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 69(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schoener, T. W. (1977). Competition and the niche. In C. Gans & D. Tinkle (Eds.), Biology of the reptilia (pp. 35–136). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sheldon, B. C. (1994). Male phenotype, fertility, and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 257(1348), 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shine, R., Ambariyanto, Harlow, P. S., & Mumpuni, (1999). Reticulated pythons in Sumatra: Biology, harvesting and sustainability. Biological Conservation, 87(3), 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simmons, L. W., & Emlen, D. J. (2006). Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proccedings of the National Academy of Science of the United State of America, 103(44), 16346–16351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stamps, J. (1983). Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism and territoriality. In R. B. Huey, E. R. Pianka, & T. W. Schoener (Eds.), Lizard ecology: Studies of a model organism (pp. 169–204). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vanhooydonck, B., Herrel, A. Y., Van Damme, R., & Irschik, D. J. (2005a). Does dewlap size predict male bite performance in Jamaican Anolis lizards? Funtional Ecology, 19(1), 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vanhooydonck, B., Herrel, A. Y., Van Damme, R., Meyers, J. J., & Irschik, D. J. (2005b). The relationship between dewlap size and performance changes with age and sex in a Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis) lizard population. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 59(1), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vitt, L. J., & Cooper, W. E., Jr. (1985). The evolution of sexual dimorphism in the skink Eumeces laticeps: An example of sexual selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 63(5), 995–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Naretto
    • 1
  • Gabriela Cardozo
    • 1
  • Cecilia S. Blengini
    • 1
  • Margarita Chiaraviglio
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratorio de Biología del Comportamiento, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales, Instituto de Diversidad y Ecología Animal IDEA (CONICET-UNC)Universidad Nacional de CórdobaCórdobaArgentina

Personalised recommendations