Territoriality in a snake
- 499 Downloads
Territorial behaviour, whereby dominant animals gain priority access to critical resources, is widespread in some animal lineages, but rare in others. Theory suggests that territoriality will evolve only when animals can economically defend sites that contain critical resources (typically mates, sometimes food). In striking contrast to their close relatives the lizards, male defence of territories for access to mates has not been reported in snakes. In south-eastern Australia, receptive female small-eyed snakes thermoregulate under “hot rocks”, concentrating mating opportunities and thus, potentially allowing males to enhance their fitness by defending these rocks from rivals. We videotaped staged contests between resident and intruder males and analysed data on cohabitation patterns from a long-term (21 years) mark-recapture study. In staged contests, males actively defended hot rocks from intruder males; and thus, larger males actively displaced their smaller rivals. In the wild, larger males were found under rocks with more or larger females. These results suggest that the thermally driven concentration of female small-eyed snakes has rendered hot rocks economically defensible, and thus favoured the evolution of territoriality in a snake.
KeywordsBehaviour Residency Territory Elapidae Cryptophis nigrescens
We thank S. Keogh, I. Scott, W. Smith, and M. Elphick for logistical assistance and all the volunteers who assisted with fieldwork. We thank an anonymous reviewer for comments that helped to improve the manuscript.
The research was funded by the University of Sydney (Sesqui Postdoctoral Research Fellowship to JKW), the Australian Academy of Science (Margaret Middleton Award for Conservation to JKW), and the Australian Research Council (to RS).
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Archer J (1988) The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Brooks RC, Griffith SC (2010) Mate choice. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW (eds) Evolutionary behavioural ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 416–433Google Scholar
- Brown JL (1964) The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull 76:160–169Google Scholar
- Cogger HG (2000) Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Duvall D, Schuett GW, Arnold SJ (1993) Ecology and evolution of snake mating systems. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT (eds) Snakes: ecology and behavior. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, pp 165–200Google Scholar
- Huang WS, Greene HW, Chang TJ, Shine R (2011) Territorial behavior in Taiwanese kukrisnakes (Oligodon formosanus). P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:7455–7459Google Scholar
- Stamps J (1983) Sexual selection, sexual dimorphism, and territoriality. In: Huey RB, Pianka ER, Schoener TW (eds) Lizard ecology: studies of a model organism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 169–204Google Scholar