Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 11, pp 2599–2604 | Cite as

Chemical discrimination of prey by naive neonate Gould's monitorsVaranus gouldii

  • Clay M. Garrett
  • Winston C. Card
Article

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that actively foraging autarchoglossan lizards rely in part on chemoreception to detect and locate prey. In one of two experiments, neonate Gould's monitorsVaranus gouldii were studied to determine whether they were able to discriminate between multiple prey odors and control odors by tongue-flicking. Responses of lizards to deionized water, a pungency control (cologne), mouse, gecko, and cricket odors on cotton-tipped applicators were studied in experiments using repeated-measures designs and using the tongue-flick attack score (TFAS) as the primary measure of response strength. The TFAS was greater in response to cricket odors than to other prey odors or to either of the control stimuli, and there was no statistically significant difference in response between control stimuli. Range of tongue-flicks elicited by cricket odor were greater than those for other prey odors and control stimuli. Only applicators bearing cricket odor were bitten. In the second experiment, lizards were tested to determine whether they respond differently to chemical stimuli taken from the exoskeleton vs. internal fluids of crickets. TFAS were slightly higher for chemical stimuli taken from internal fluids, but not significantly so. Lizards bit applicators in both conditions. Details of responses to experimental trials are discussed in relation to the feeding behavior of this species.

Key words

Varanus gouldii lizard Sauria Varanidae chemoreception vomerolfaction prey discrimination 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achen, P.H. Von, 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.Google Scholar
  2. Auffenberg, W. 1981. The Behavioral Ecology of the Komodo Monitor. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  3. Auffenberg, W. 1984. Notes on the feeding behavior ofVaranus bengalensis (Sauria: Varanidae).J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 80:286–302.Google Scholar
  4. Burghardt, G.M. 1967. Chemical cue preferences of inexperienced snakes: Comparative aspects.Science 157:718–721.Google Scholar
  5. Burghardt, G.M. 1969. Comparative prey-attack studies in newborn snakes of the genusThamnophis.Behaviour 33:77–114.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 1. Communication by Chemical Signals. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Burghardt, G.M. 1973. Chemical release of prey attack: Extension to newly hatched lizardsEumeces fasciatus.Copeia 1973:178–181.Google Scholar
  8. Burghardt, G.M. 1977. Of iguanas and dinosaurs: Social behavior and communication in neonate reptiles.Am. Zool. 17:177–190.Google Scholar
  9. Chiszar, D., Hobika, G., andH.M. Smith. 1993. Prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) respond to rodent blood with chemosensory searching.Brain Behav. Evol. 41:229–233.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1989. Prey odor discrimination in the varanoid lizardsHeloderma suspectum andVaranus exanthematicus.Ethology 80:250–258.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1990a. Prey odor discrimination by lizards and snakes, pp. 533–553,in D.W. Macdonald, D. Müller-Schwarze, and S.E. Natynczuk (eds.) Chemical Signals in Vertebrates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1990b. 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
  13. Cooper, W.E., Jr. 1991. Responses to prey chemicals by a lacertid lizardPodarcis muralis: Prey chemical discrimination and poststrike elevation in tongue-flick rate.J. Chem. Ecol. 17:849–863.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, W.E., Jr. andBurghardt, G.M. 1990. A comparative analysis of scoring methods for chemical discrimination of prey by squamate reptiles.J. Chem. Ecol. 16:45–65.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Fuchs, J.L., andBurghardt, G.M. 1971. Effects of early feeding experience on the responses of garter snakes to food chemicals.Learn. Motiv. 2(3):271–279.Google Scholar
  17. Halpern, M. 1992. Nasal chemical senses in reptiles: Structure and function, pp. 423–522,in C. Gans and D. Crews (eds.). Biology of the Reptilia. Vol. 18, Physiology B: Hormones, Brain, and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Halpern, M., andFruman, N. 1979. Roles of vomeronasal and olfactory systems in prey attack and feeding in adult garter snakes.Physiol. Behav. 22:1183–1189.Google Scholar
  19. King, D., andGreen, B. 1979. Notes on diet and reproduction of the sand goannaVaranus gouldii rosenbergi.Copeia 1979:64–70.Google Scholar
  20. McDowell, S.B. 1972. The evolution of the tongue in snakes, and its bearing on snake origins, pp. 191–273,in T. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht, and W.C. Steere (eds.). Evolutionary Biology. Vol. 6. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Mertens, R. 1958. Bemerkungen uber die Warane Australiens. Senckenberg.Biology 39:229–254.Google Scholar
  22. Pianka, E.R. 1970. Notes on the biology ofVaranus gouldii flavirufus.West. Aust. Nat. 11:180–183.Google Scholar
  23. Pianka, E.R. 1972. Zoogeography and speciation of Australian desert lizards; an ecological perspective.Copeia 1972:127–145.Google Scholar
  24. Pengilly, R. 1981. Notes on the biology ofVaranus spenceri andV. gouldii, Barkley Tablelands, Northern Territory.Aust. J. Herpetol. 1:23–26.Google Scholar
  25. Simon, C.A. 1983. A review of lizard chemoreception, pp. 119–133,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

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clay M. Garrett
    • 1
  • Winston C. Card
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HerpetologyDallas

Personalised recommendations