Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 709–720

Responses to Major Categories of Food Chemicals by the Lizard Podarcis lilfordi

  • William E. CooperJr.
  • Valentín Pérez-Mellado
  • Laurie J. Vitt
Article

Abstract

Many lizards are capable of identifying food using only chemical cues from food surfaces, but almost nothing is known about the types of compounds that are effective stimuli. We experimentally studied lingual and biting responses by a lacertid lizard, Podarcis lilfordi, to single representatives of three major categories of food chemicals, sucrose as a carbohydrate, pure pork fat as a mixture of lipids, and bovine gamma globulin as a protein. In 60-sec trials in which stimuli were presented on cotton swabs, the lizards detected all three stimuli, exhibiting more tongue-flicks, licks, or bites, or a greater tongue-flick attack score (TFAS; overall measure of response strength to prey stimuli) than to deionized water. The initial response to all stimuli was tongue-flicking, but the lizards discriminated among the types of chemical stimuli. After preliminary tongue-flicks, the lizards responded to sucrose solutions by licking at high rates, to pure pork fat by biting, and to protein by a combination of additional tongue-flicks and biting. Biting is a feeding response to prey or solid plant material. Licking is a feeding response to sugars in nectar or ripe fruit. Its frequency increased with sucrose concentration. Our data suggest that lizards can identify several types of chemicals associated with food and direct feeding attempts to sources of such chemicals in the absence of visual cues.

Behavior chemical senses tongue-flicking food chemicals Squamata Lacertidae Podarcis lilfordi 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Arnold, S. J.1981. Behavioral variation in natural populations. I. Phenotypic, genetic and environmental correlations between chemoreceptive responses to prey in the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Evolution35:489–509.Google Scholar
  2. Barbadillo, L. J., Lacomba, L. J., PÉrez-Mellado, V., Sancho, V., and Lopez-Jurado, L. F.1999. Anfibios Y Reptiles De La Peninsula Iberica, Baleares, Y Canarias. GeoPlaneta, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  3. Burghardt, G. M.1967. Chemical-cue preferences of inexperienced snakes: Comparative aspects. Science157:718–721.Google Scholar
  4. Burghardt, G. M.1970a. Chemical perception of reptiles, pp. 241–308, inJ. W. Johnston, Jr., D. G. Moulton, and A. Turk (eds.). Communication by Chemical Signals. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Burghardt, G. M.1970b. Intraspecific geographical variation in chemical food cue preferences of newborn garter snakes (Thamnophis Sirtalis). Behaviour36:246–257.Google Scholar
  6. Burghardt, G. M., Goss, S. E., and Schell, F.M.1988. Comparison of earthworm-and fish-derived chemicals eliciting prey attack by garter snakes (Thamnophis). J. Chem. Ecol.14:855–881.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, W. E., Jr.1995. Foraging mode, prey chemical discrimination, and phylogeny in lizards. Anim. Behav.50:973–985.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, W. E., Jr.1997. Correlated evolution of prey chemical discrimination with foraging, lingual morphology, and vomeronasal chemoreceptor abundance in lizards. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.41:257–265.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, W. E., Jr.2000a. An adaptive difference in the relationship between foraging mode and responses to prey chemicals in two congeneric scincid lizards. Ethology106:193–206.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, W. E., Jr.2000b. Food chemical discriminations by an herbivorous lizard, Corucia zebrata. J. Exp. Zool.286:372–378.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, W. E., Jr.2000c. Chemosensory discrimination of plant and animal foods by the omnivorous iguanian lizard Pogona vitticeps. Can. J. Zool.78:1–5.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and Alberts, A. C.1991. Tongue-flicking and biting in response to chemical food stimuli by an iguanid lizard (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) having sealed vomeronasal ducts: Vomerolfaction may mediate these behavioral responses. J. Chem. Ecol.17:135–146.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, W. E. J., AND Burghardt, 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
  14. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and Perez-Mellado, V.2001a. Chemosensory responses to sugar and fat by the omnivorous lizard Gallotia caesariswith behavioral evidence suggesting a role for gustation. Physiol. Behav.73:509–516.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and Perez-Mellado, V.2001b. Food chemical cues elicit general and populationspecific effects on lingual and biting behaviors in the lacertid lizard Podarcis lilfordi. J. Exp. Zool.290:207–217.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and Perez-Mellado, V.2001c. Location of fruit using only airborne odor cues by a lizard. Physiol. Behav.74:339–342.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, W. E., Jr., Buth, D. G., and Vitt, L. J.1990. Prey odor discrimination by ingestively naïve coachwhip snakes (Masticophis flagellum). Chemoecology1:86–91.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, W. E., Jr., Al-Johany, A. M., Vitt, L. J., and Habegger, J. J.2000a. Responses to chemical cues from animal and plant foods by actively foraging insectivorous and omnivorous scincine lizards. J. Exp. Zool.287:327–339.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, W. E., Burghardt, G. M., and Brown, W. S.2000b. Chemical stimuli from potential prey and predators: Behavioral responses by hatchling racers (Coluber constrictor) from two geographically distinct populations. Amphibia-Reptilia21:103–115.Google Scholar
  20. Halpern, M.1992. Nasal chemical senses in reptiles: structure and function, pp. 423–523, inC. Gans and D. Crews (eds.). Biology of the Reptilia, Vol. 18, Brain, Hormones, and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  21. Halpern, M., and Frumin, N.1979. Roles of the vomeronasal and olfactory systems in prey attack and feeding in adult garter snakes. Physiol. Behav.22:1183–1189.Google Scholar
  22. Perez-Mellado, V., and Corti, C.1993. Dietary adaptations and herbivory in lacertid lizards of the genus Podarcisfrom western Mediterranean islands (Reptilia: Sauria). Bonn. Zool. Beitr.44:193–220.Google Scholar
  23. Salvador, A.1986. Podarcis lilfordi(Günther, 1874)—Balearen Eidechse, pp. 231–253, inW. Böhme (ed.). Hanbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas, Band 2/II: Echsen (Sauria) III (Lacertidae III: Podarcis). Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Salvador, A.1998. Fauna Iberica. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid.Google Scholar
  25. Schall, J. J.1990. Aversion of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus) to a model alkaloid. Herpetologica46:34–39.Google Scholar
  26. Schall, J. J., and Ressell, S.1991. Toxic plant compounds and the diet of the predominantly herbivorous whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus arubensis. Copeia1991:111–119.Google Scholar
  27. Schwenk, K.1985. Occurrence, distribution and functional significance of taste buds in lizards. Copeia1985:91–101.Google Scholar
  28. Stanger-Hall, K. F., Zelmer, D. A., Bergren, C., and Burns, S. A.2001. Taste discrimination in a lizard (Anolis carolinensis, Polychrotidae). Copeia2001:490–498.Google Scholar
  29. Wang, D., Chen, P., Jiang, X. C., and Halpern, M.1988. Isolation from earthworms of a proteinaceous chemoattractant to garter snakes. Arch. Biochem. Biophys.267:459–456.Google Scholar
  30. Winer, B. J.1962. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Wright, S. P.1992. Adjusted p-values for simultaneous inference. Biometrics48:1005–1013.Google Scholar
  32. Zar, J. H.1996. Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. CooperJr.
    • 1
  • Valentín Pérez-Mellado
    • 2
  • Laurie J. Vitt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana University-Purdue University at Fort WayneFort Wayne
  2. 2.Departamento de Biologia AnimalUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  3. 3.Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, and Department of ZoologyUniversity of OklahomaNorman

Personalised recommendations