Abstract
Nesting behavior is an important part of reproduction that affects maternal fitness. Females of most oviparous species choose microhabitats for nesting that have positive effects on embryo development. However, choosing suitable nest microhabitats could be challenging in environments that fluctuate unpredictably. In many reptiles, females avoid nesting in dry microhabitats because eggs rapidly desiccate. In nature, however, microhabitats with suitable hydric conditions at the time of oviposition may eventually become lethally dry during incubation. We designed an experiment to test whether female lizards (Anolis sagrei) avoid nesting in locations with unpredictable fluctuations in substrate moisture and choose sites with stable moist conditions. We provided captive lizards three nest conditions to choose among: 1) substrate that predictably alternated between suitable and lethal moisture conditions, 2) substrate that fluctuated unpredictably between suitable and lethal conditions, and 3) substrate with moisture levels that remained constant. For the constant choice, some females could choose moist substrate (which is suitable for embryos), and others could choose dry substrate (which rapidly desiccates eggs). Females always nested in substrates that were moist at the time of oviposition, regardless of the level of predictability. Additionally, while constantly dry substrate was avoided, females did not distinguish between predictable and unpredictable options, both of which resulted in 100% egg mortality. These results suggest that nest site choice is based on immediate environmental cues, rather than the level of predictability of future conditions of nest sites, which in turn can have negative consequences when environments fluctuate between suitable and unsuitable conditions.
Significance statement
Fluctuating environments pose challenges to females when seeking suitable locations for laying eggs. Female brown anole lizards choose moist nest conditions that facilitate embryo development. However, because moisture levels of nest substrate can unpredictably change, females that avoid nesting in microhabitats with unpredictable moisture fluctuations may have increased fitness. We tested the ability of females to select sites based on moisture predictability by providing them with options where substrate moisture remained stable, fluctuated predictably, and fluctuated unpredictably. Females did not discriminate among stable and fluctuating substrates. Rather, they always nested in moist substrates that were present at the time of oviposition, even if their nest site eventually fluctuated towards lethally dry conditions. Our results show that extreme fluctuations lead to poor choices of nest sites, which is problematic under global change where fluctuations in ambient conditions are expected to increase.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data is publically available at the Auburn University data repository (AUrora): http://dx.doi.org/10.35099/aurora-518
References
Ackerman RA, Dmi’el R, Ar A (1985) Energy and water vapor exchange by parchment-shelled reptile eggs. Physiol Zool 58:129–137
Bakker TCM, Mundwiler B (2021) Nest-site selection in a fish species with parental care. Hydrobiologia 848:641–650
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48
Bodensteiner BL, Mitchell TS, Strickland JT, Janzen FJ (2014) Hydric conditions during incubation influence phenotypes of neonatal reptiles in the field. Funct Ecol 29:710–717
Brown GP, Shine R (2004) Maternal nest-site choice and offspring fitness in a tropical snake (Tropidonophis mairii, Colubridae). Ecology 85:1627–1634
Brown GP, Shine R (2005) Do changing moisture levels during incubation influence phenotypic traits of hatchling snakes (Tropidonophis mairii, Colubridae)? Physiol Biochem Zool 78:524–530
Brown KM, Sexton OJ (1973) Stimulation of reproductive activity of female Anolis sagrei by moisture. Physiol Zool 46:168–172
Burke VJ, Gibbons JW, Greene JL (1994) Prolonged nesting forays by common mud turtles (Kinosternon subruburm). Am Midl Nat 131:190–195
Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ (2015) Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dees A, Wilson K, Reali C, Pruett JE, Hall JM, Brandt R, Warner DA (2020) Communal egg-laying behavior and the consequences of egg aggregation in the brown anole (Anolis sagrei). Ethology 126:751–760
Delaney DM, Brandt R, Beaumont CM, Warner DA (2021) Anolis sagrei (brown anole). Egg-Carrying Behavior Herpetol Rev 52:642–643
Delaney DM, Janzen FJ (2020) Risk-sensitive maternal investment: an evaluation of parent-offspring conflict over nest site choice in the wild. Anim Behav 163:105–113
Doligez B, Cadet C, Danchin E, Boulinier T (2003) When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence. Anim Behav 66:973–988
Doody JS, Guarino E, Georges A, Corey B, Murray G, Ewert M (2006) Nest site choice compensates for climate effects on sex ratios in a lizard with environmental sex determination. Evol Ecol 20:307–330
Doody JS, McGlashan J, Fryer H, Coleman L, James H, Soennichsen K, Rhind D, Clulow S (2020) Plasticity in nest site choice behavior in response to hydric conditions in a reptile. Sci Rep 10:16048. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73080-6
Drake A, Martin K (2020) Rainfall and nest site competition delay mountain bluebird and tree swallow breeding but do not impact productivity. Auk 137:ukaa006. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa006
Elphick MJ, Pike DA, Bezzina C, Shine R (2013) Cues for communal egg-laying in lizards (Biassian duperreyi, Scincidae). Biol J Linn Soc 110:839–842
Freedberg S, Lee C, Pappas M (2011) Agricultural practices alter sex ratios in a reptile with environmental sex determination. Biol Conserv 144:1159–1166
Geller GA, Doody JS, Clulow S, Duncan RP (2022) Do freshwater turtles use rainfall to increase nest success? Front Ecol Evol 10:852175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.852175
Hall JM, Mitchell TS, Thawley CJ, Stroud JT, Warner DA (2020) Adaptive seasonal shift towards investment in fewer, larger offspring: evidence from field and laboratory studies. J Anim Ecol 89:1242–1253
Hall JM, Miracle J, Scruggs CD, Warner DA (2022) Natural nest substrates influence squamate embryo physiology but have little effect on hatchling phenotypes. Integr Zool 17:550–556
Hall JM, Warner DA (2019) Thermal tolerance in the urban heat island: thermal sensitivity varies ontogenetically and differs between embryos of two sympatric ectotherms. J Exp Biol 222:jeb210708. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.210708
Hunter EA, Nibbelink NP, Cooper RJ (2016) Threat predictability influences seaside sparrow nest site selection when facing trade-offs from predation and flooding. Anim Behav 120:135–142
Janzen FJ (1994) Vegetational cover predicts the sex ratio of hatchling turtles in natural nests. Ecology 75:1593–1599
Janzen FJ, Morjan CL (2001) Repeatability of microenvironment-specific nesting behaviour in a turtle with environmental sex determination. Anim Behav 62:73–82
Kivelä SM, Seppänen J-T, Ovaskainen O, Doligez B, Gustafsson L, Mönkkönen M, Forsman JT (2014) The past and the present in decision-making: the use of conspecific and heterospecific cues in nest site selection. Ecology 95:3428–3439
Leal M, Powell BJ (2012) Behavioral flexibility and problem-solving in a tropical lizard. Biol Lett 8:28–30
Li R-R, Hao X, Wang Y, Sun B-J, Bi J-H, Zhang Y-P, Janzen FJ, Du W-G (2018) Female lizards choose warm, moist nests that improve embryonic survivorship and offspring fitness. Funct Ecol 32:416–423
Löwenborg K, Shine R, Hagman M (2010) Fitness disadvantages to disrupted embryogenesis impose selection against suboptimal nest-site choice by female grass snakes, Natrix natrix (Colubridae). J Evol Biol 24:177–183
Lyons MP, von Holle B, Weishampel JF (2022) Why do sea turtle nests fail? Modeling clutch loss across the southeastern United States. Ecosphere 13:e3988. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3988
Møller AP (1989) Nest site selection across field-woodland ecotones: The effect of nest predation. Oikos 56:240–246
Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13:403–407
O’Brien DM, Silla AJ, Byrne PG (2020) Nest site selection in a terrestrial breeding frog: interrelationships between nest moisture, pH and male advertisement. Anim Behav 169:57–64
Packard GC, Packard MJ, Miller K, Boardman TJ (1987) Influence of moisture, temperature, and substrate on snapping turtle eggs and embryos. Ecology 68:983–993
Pearson PR, Warner DA (2018) Early hatching enhances survival despite beneficial phenotypic effects of late season developmental environments. Proc R Soc B 285:20180256. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0256
Pike DA, Webb JK, Andrews RM (2011) Social and thermal cues influence nest-site selection in a nocturnal gecko, Oedura lesueurii. Ethology 117:796–801
Pruett JE, Addis EA, Warner DA (2019) The influence of maternal nesting behaviour on offspring survival: evidence from correlational and cross-fostering studies. Anim Behav 153:15–24
Pruett JE, Fargevieille A, Warner DA (2020) Temporal variation in maternal nest choice and its consequences for lizard embryos. Behav Ecol 31:902–910
Pruett JE, Hall JM, Tiatragul S, Warner DA (2022) Nesting in Anolis lizards: an under studied topic in a well-studied clade. Front Ecol Evol 10:821115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.821115
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/
Radder RS, Shine R (2007) Why do female lizards lay their eggs in communal nests? J Anim Ecol 76:881–887
Rand S (1967) Communal egg laying anoline lizards. Herpetologica 23:227–230
Rauter CM, Reyer H-U, Bollmann K (2002) Selection through predation, snowfall and microclimate on nest-site preferences in the water pipit Anthus spinoletta. Ibis 144:433–444
Reedy AM, Zaragoza D, Warner DA (2013) Maternally chosen nest sites positivity affect multiple components of offspring fitness in a lizard. Behav Ecol 24:39–46
Refsnider JM, Janzen FJ (2010) Putting eggs in one basket: ecological and evolutionary hypotheses for variation in oviposition–site choice. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 41:39–57
Refsnider JM, Reedy AM, Warner DA, Janzen FJ (2015) Do trade-offs between predation pressures on females versus nests drive nest-site choice in painted turtles? Biol J Linn Soc 116:847–855
Robbins TR, Warner DA (2010) Fluctuations in the incubation moisture environment affect growth but not survival of hatchling lizards. Biol J Linn Soc 100:89–102
Stamps JA (1976) Egg retention, rainfall and egg laying in a tropical lizard Anolis aeneus. Copeia 1976:759–764
Sullivan S, Heinrich GL, Mattheus NM, Cassill D, Doody JS (2022) Can reptiles use nest site choice behaviour to counter global warming effects on developing embryos? Potential climate responses in a turtle. Front Ecol Evol 10:825110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.825110
Thomson RL, Forsman JK, Sardà-Palomera F, Mönkkönen M (2006) Fear factor: prey habitat selection and its consequences in a predation risk landscape. Ecography 29:507–514
Tiatragul S, Hall JM, Warner DA (2020) Nestled in the city heat: urban nesting behavior enhances embryo development of an invasive lizard. J Urban Ecol 6:001. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa001
Tolvanen J, Seppanen J-T, Monkkonen M, Thomson RL, Ylonen H, Forsman JT (2018) Interspecific information on predation risk affects nest site choice in a passerine bird. BMC Evol Biol 18:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1301-3
Warner DA, Andrews RM (2002) Nest-site choice in relation to temperature and moisture by the lizard Sceloporus undulatus. Herpetologica 58:399–407
Warner DA, Du W-G, Georges A (2018) Introduction to the special issue – Developmental plasticity in reptiles: physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences. J Exp Zool A 329:153–161
Warner DA, Shine R (2008) Maternal nest-site choice in a lizard with temperature-dependent sex determination. Anim Behav 75:861–870
Warner DA, Shine R (2009) Maternal and environmental effects on offspring phenotypes in an oviparous lizard: do field data corroborate laboratory data? Oecologia 161:209–220
Zhao Q-S, Hu Y-B, Liu P-F, Chen L-J, Sun Y-H (2016) Nest site choice: a potential pathway linking personality and reproductive success. Anim Behav 118:97–103
Acknowledgements
We thank the students in the 2020 Herpetology class at Auburn University for helping initiate this project. Thanks to Joshua Hall, Jocelyn Miracle, Kaitlyn Murphy, Jamie Oaks, Cindy Scruggs, and Holden Smith with assistance during this work. We are grateful for the thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of the paper from members of the Warner and Wolak labs and two anonymous reviewers. This is publication #954 of the Auburn University Museum of Natural History.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization (DAW, JEP, AF, RLK); data collection (JEP, AF, RLK); data analysis (DAW); writing and editing (DAW, CK, JEP, AF, RLK).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This project was approved by the Auburn University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #2019–3639). All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the use of animals were followed.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by S. Joy Downes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Warner, D.A., Kelly, C., Pruett, J.E. et al. Fluctuating environments hinder the ability of female lizards to choose suitable nest sites for their embryos. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 77, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-023-03310-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-023-03310-0