Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does habitat disturbance promote geographical parthenogenesis in whiptail lizards?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sexual and asexual organisms often vary in their distribution and abundances among habitats. These patterns of “geographical parthenogenesis” can shed light on ecological conditions underlying the evolution of sex. Habitat disturbance is hypothesized to be a mechanism that generates geographical parthenogenesis. Parthenogens are predicted to be more prevalent in disturbed habitats than sexuals due to the greater colonizing ability of parthenogens and the tendency of parthenogens to avoid competition with sexuals in undisturbed habitat. We tested whether habitat disturbance (i.e., a rapid state transition between vegetation communities) causes geographical parthenogenesis in whiptail lizards in the Chihuahuan Desert of southern New Mexico. Non-experimental approaches have shown the parthenogenetic Aspidoscelis uniparens commonly occurs in habitat with a history of vegetation disturbance from shrub removal, whereas the sexual A. marmorata occurs more often in undisturbed shrubland habitat. We used a field experiment replicated across 16 sites to test whether the parthenogen A. uniparens and sexual A. marmorata differ in their response to vegetation disturbance from shrub removal. The sites were distributed across a broad region of southern New Mexico, and we used a paired design with each site including a shrub-removal treatment and a control on 9-ha plots. Using a co-abundance model that accounts for imperfect detection, we found the parthenogen A. uniparens and sexual A. marmorata both responded positively to disturbance, but only when the congener was rare. Our results are inconsistent with the idea that parthenogens exploit disturbed habitat to avoid competition with sexuals. In our study system, A. uniparens often dominates older disturbed sites, especially two decades or more after shrub removal. Collectively, these results indicate geographical parthenogenesis emerges from biotic interactions in heterogeneous landscapes that include disturbed habitats used by sexual and asexual species alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data and code for our models are available at https://github.com/bcosentino/whiptail-coabundance.

References

  • Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bestelmeyer BT, Peters DPC, Archer SR, Browning DM, Okin GS, Schooley RL, Webb NP (2018) The grassland-shrubland regime shift in the southwestern United States: misconceptions and their implications for management. Bioscience 68:678–690

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodie J, Helmy OE, Mohd-Azlan J, Granados A, Bernard H, Giordano AJ, Zipkin E (2018) Models for assessing local-scale co-abundance of animal species while accounting for differential detectability and varied responses to the environment. Biotropica 50:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ (1990) Patterns of coexistence in sexual and asexual species of Cnemidophorus lizards. Oecologia 83:220–227

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ, Taper ML (1986) On the coexistence and coevolution of asexual and sexual competitors. Evolution 40:366–387

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coffman JM, Bestelmeyer BT, Kelly JF, Wright TF, Schooley RL (2014) Restoration practices have positive effects on breeding bird species of concern in the Chihuahuan Desert. Restor Ecol 22:336–344

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Congdon JD, Vitt LJ, Hadley NF (1978) Parental investment: Comparative reproductive energetics in bisexual and unisexual lizards, genus Cnemidophorus. Am Nat 112:509–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosentino BJ, Schooley RL, Bestelmeyer BT, Coffman JM (2013) Response of lizard community structure to desert grassland restoration mediated by a keystone rodent. Biodivers Conserv 22:921–935

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1971) Reproduction and the mechanism of meiotic restitution in the parthenogenetic lizard Cnemidophorus uniparens. J Morphol 133:139–165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1976) Intraclonal histocompatibility in a parthenogenetic lizard: evidence of genetic homogeneity. Science 193:150–153

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1977) Animal parthenogenesis. Science 197:837–843

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1979) On the ecology and coexistence in parthenogenetic and bisexual lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus. Am Zool 19:773–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1981) Long-term analysis of reproductive periodicity in the lizard Cnemidophorus uniparens. Am Midl Nat 105:93–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1984) Reproduction in a parthenogenetic lizard: With a discussion of optimal clutch size and a critique of the clutch weight/body weight ratio. Am Midl Nat 111:242–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar O (1993) Further observations on competition and natural history of coexisting parthenogenetic and bisexual whiptail lizards. In: Wright JW, Vitt LJ (eds) Biology of whiptail lizards (Genus Cnemidophorus). Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, pp 345–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Densmore LD, Moritz CC, Wright JW, Brown WM (1989) Mitochondrial-DNA analyses and the origin and relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (Genus Cnemidophorus) IV Nine sexlineatus-group unisexuals. Evolution 43:969–983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon JR (2009) Marbled whiptail. In: Jones LLC, Lovich RE (eds) Lizards of the American Southwest. Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson, pp 362–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge DJ, Bowker MA, Maestre FT, Roger E, Reynolds JF, Whitford WG (2011) Impacts of shrub encroachment on ecosystem structure and functioning: towards a global synthesis. Ecol Lett 14:709–722

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes-Ramirez A, Mudrak EL, Caragea PC, Holzapfel C, Moloney KA (2015) Assessing the impact of the spatial distribution of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert, USA. Oecologia 178:473–484

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaggiotti OE (1994) An ecological model for the maintenance of sex and geographical parthenogenesis. J Theor Biol 167:201–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson AK, Delph LF, Lively CM (2017) The two-fold cost of sex: experimental evidence from a natural system. Evol Lett 1–1:6–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Glesener RD, Tilman D (1978) Sexuality and the components of environmental uncertainty: Clues from geographical parthenogenesis in terrestrial animals. Am Nat 112:659–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1980) Sex vs. non-sex vs. parasite. Oikos 35:282–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley KA, Bolger DT, Case TJ (1994) Comparative ecology of sexual and asexual gecko species (Lepidodactylus) in French Polynesia. Evol Ecol 8:438–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrick JE, Van Zee JW, McCord SE, Courtright EM, Karl JW, Burkett LM (2017) Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland, and savanna ecosystems. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaenike J (1978) A hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evol Theory 3:191–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RD (2009) New Mexico whiptail (unisexual). In: Jones LLC, Lovich RE (eds) Lizards of the American Southwest. Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson, pp 366–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney M, Fujita MK, Ridenour J (2009) Lost sex in the reptiles: constraints and correlations. In: Schön I, Martens K, Dijk P (eds) Lost sex: the evolutionary biology of parthenogenesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 447–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Royle JA (2016) Applied hierarchical modeling in ecology: analysis of distribution, abundance, and species richness in R and BUGS, vol 1. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavanchy G, Strehler M, Llanos Roman MN et al (2016) Habitat heterogeneity favors asexual reproduction in natural populations of grassthrips. Evolution 70:1780–1790

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lively CM, Morran LT (2014) The ecology of sexual reproduction. J Evol Biol 27:1292–1303

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mata-Silva V, Ramírez-Bautista A, Johnson JD (2010) Reproductive characteristics of two syntopic whiptail lizards, Aspidoscelis marmorata and Aspidoscelis tesselata, from the northern Chihuahuan Desert. Southwest Nat 55:125–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Meirmans S, Meirmans PG, Kirkendall LR (2012) The costs of sex: facing real-world complexities. Q Rev Biol 87:19–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menke SB (2003) Lizard community structure across a grassland-creosote bush ecotone in the Chihuahuan Desert. Can J Zool 81:1829–1838

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell JC (1979) Ecology of southeastern Arizona whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus: Teiidae): population densities, resource partitioning, and niche overlap. Can J Zool 57:1487–1499

    Google Scholar 

  • Neiman M, Meirmans PG, Schwander T, Meirmans S (2018) Sex in the wild: how and why field-based studies contribute to solving the problem of sex. Evolution 72:1194–1203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orrock JL, Fletcher RJ (2005) Changes in community size affect the outcome of competition. Am Nat 166:107–111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Painter CW, Stuart JN, Tomasz Giermakowski J, Pierce LJS (2017) Checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico, USA, with notes on taxonomy, status, and distribution. West Wildl 4:29–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulissen MA, Walker JM, Cordes JE (1992) Can parthenogenetic Cnemidophorus laredoensis (Teiidae) coexist with its bisexual congeners? J Herpetol 26:153–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins SR, McDaniel KC, Ulery AL (2006) Vegetation and soil change following creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) control in the Chihuahuan Desert. J Arid Environ 64:152–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianka ER (1966) Deserts, lizards, and spatial heterogeneity. Ecology 47:1055–1059

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianka ER (1967) On lizard species diversity: North American flatland deserts. Ecology 48:333–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer M (2017) JAGS version 4.3.0 user manual. https://sourceforge.net/projects/mcmc-jags/files/Manuals/4.x/. Accessed Oct 2018

  • Price AH, Lapointe JL, Atmar JW (1993) The ecology and evolutionary implications of competition and parthenogenesis in Cnemidophorus. In: Wright JW, Vitt LJ (eds) Biology of whiptail lizards (Genus Cnemidophorus). Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, pp 371–410

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org

  • Reeder TW, Cole CJ, Dessauer HC (2002) Phylogenetic relationships of whiptail lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus (Squamata: Teiidae): a test of monophyly, reevaluation of karyotypic evolution, and review of hybrid origins. Am Mus Novit 3365:1–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelle W (2018) Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. Accessed Oct 2018

  • Royle JA (2004) N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schall JJ (1978) Reproductive strategies in sympatric whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus): two parthenogenetic and three bisexual species. Copeia 1978:108–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger WH, Reynolds JF, Cunningham GL, Huenneke LF, Jarrell WM, Virginia RA, Whitford WG (1990) Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247:1043–1048

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Bestelmeyer BT, Campanella A (2018) Shrub encroachment, productivity pulses, and core-transient dynamics of Chihuahuan Desert rodents. Ecosphere 9(7):e02330

    Google Scholar 

  • Su Y-S, Yajima M (2015) R2jags: using R to run “JAGS”. R package version 0.5-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R2jags. Accessed Oct 2018

  • Tilquin A, Kokko H (2016) What does the geography of parthenogenesis teach us about sex? Philos Trans R Soc Lond. Ser B 371:20150538

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandel A (1928) La parthénogenèse géographique. Contribution à l’étude biologique et cytologique de la parthénogenèse naturelle. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique 62:164–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrijenhoek RC, Parker ED Jr (2009) Geographical parthenogenesis: general purpose genotypes and frozen niche variation. In: Schön I, Martens K, Dijk P (eds) Lost sex: the evolutionary biology of parthenogenesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 99–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright JW (1993) Evolution of the lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus. In: Wright JW, Vitt LJ (eds) Biology of whiptail lizards (Genus Cnemidophorus). Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, pp 27–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright JW, Lowe CH (1968) Weeds, polyploids, parthenogenesis, and the geographical and ecological distribution of all-female species of Cnemidophorus. Copeia 1968:128–138

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by Agroecosystem Management Program Grant No. 2016-67019-25212 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Shrub removal treatments were applied by the United States Bureau of Land Management—Las Cruces. Because the work involved only remote observation of lizards through binoculars, without disturbance, no ethics permits were required under local laws. We thank S. Callahan and Q. Johnson for field assistance and B. Fischman and A. Tilquin for comments on the manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY, 14456, USA

    Bradley J. Cosentino

  2. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Robert L. Schooley

  3. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico State University, MSC 3JER, Box 30003, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA

    Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Herman Campos & Laura M. Burkett

Authors
  1. Bradley J. Cosentino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert L. Schooley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brandon T. Bestelmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Herman Campos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura M. Burkett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BJC, RLS, and BTB designed the study. HC and LMB collected the data. BJC analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley J. Cosentino.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 120 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cosentino, B.J., Schooley, R.L., Bestelmeyer, B.T. et al. Does habitat disturbance promote geographical parthenogenesis in whiptail lizards?. Evol Ecol 33, 839–853 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-019-10006-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-019-10006-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation