Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T19:17:13.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Alternative reproductive tactics in reptiles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2009

By
Ryan Calsbeek  and
Barry Sinervo
Edited by
Rui F. Oliveira ,
Michael Taborsky  and
H. Jane Brockmann
Ryan Calsbeek
Affiliation:
Center for Tropical Research Institute of the Environment University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
Barry Sinervo
Affiliation:
Earth and Marine Sciences A308 University of California Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA
Rui F. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Instituto Superior Psicologia Aplicada, Lisbon
Michael Taborsky
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
H. Jane Brockmann
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter we explore the diversity of alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs) exhibited by reptiles. There is a rich literature on ARTs in a broad diversity of reptile lineages, and our contribution is therefore not an exhaustive one. Rather, we attempt to cover topics of general significance to many fields of study, including differences in male and female reproductive behavior, sex ratio adjustment and progeny gender manipulation, and the role of parthenogenesis in mating systems. Our goal is to provide a representative portrait of the diversity of tactics displayed among reptilian lineages, but we often illustrate more elaborate points using data from side-blotched lizards, Uta stansburiana, a system that we have been working on together for a decade. Throughout the chapter we emphasize the distinction between the proximate and the ultimate mechanisms that underlie the evolution of alternative tactics. We conclude with a brief discussion of potentially exciting future research directions in reptilian systems.

INTRODUCTION

Exploring alternative reproductive tactics (ARTs) in reptiles presents a great challenge given the diverse nature of these taxa. Modern reptilian lineages are paraphyletic with ancient histories. Some extinct reptilian groups such as the dinosaurs undoubtedly exhibited alternative reproductive tactics, given the documented dichotomy between precocial (Geist and Jones 1996, Varricchio et al. 1997) and altricial young (Horner 2000) in various dinosaur lineages. This dichotomy in the developmental tactics of young is strongly associated with the mating systems in the surviving descendants of dinosaurs, the birds.

Type
Chapter
Information
Alternative Reproductive Tactics
An Integrative Approach
 , pp. 332 - 342
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alonzo, S. H. and Sinervo, B. 2001. Mate choice games, context-dependent good genes, and genetic cycles in the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calsbeek, R. and Sinervo, B. 2002. Uncoupling direct and indirect components of female choice in the wild. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 14897–14902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calsbeek, R. and Sinervo, B. 2004. Progeny sex is determined by relative male body size within polyandrous females' clutches: cryptic mate choice in the wild. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17, 464–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calsbeek, R., Alonzo, S. H., Zamudio, K., and Sinervo, B. 2002. Sexual selection and alternative strategies generate demographic stochasticity in small populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chippindale, A. K., Gibson, J. R., and Rice, W. R. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 1671–1675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciszek, D. 2000. New colony formation in the “highly inbred” eusocial naked mole-rat: outbreeding is preferred. Behavioral Ecology 11, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, D. and Young, L. J. 1991. Pseudocopulation in nature in a unisexual whiptail lizard. Animal Behaviour 42, 512–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Davies, N. B. 1985. Cooperation and conflict among dunnocks, Prunella modularis, in a variable mating system. Animal Behaviour 33, 628–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. B. and Lundberg, A. 1984. Food distribution and a variable mating system in the dunnock, Prunella modularis. Journal of Animal Ecology 53, 895–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fraipont, M., Clobert, J., and Barbault, R. 1996. The evolution of oviparity with egg guarding and viviparity in lizards and snakes: a phylogenetic analysis. Evolution 50, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffield, G. A. and Bull, C. M. 2002. Stable social aggregations in an Australian lizard, Egernia stokesfi. Naturwissenschaften 89, 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. 2000. Criteria for demonstrating postcopulatory female choice. Evolution 54, 1047–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elf, P. K., Lang, J. W., and Fivizzani, A. J. 2002. Dynamics of yolk steroid hormones during development in a reptile with temperature-dependent sex determination. General and Comparative Endocrinology 127, 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. G., Bull, C. M., and Cooper, S. J. B. 2002. High levels of genetic monogamy in the group-living Australian lizard Egernia stokesii. Molecular Ecology 11, 1787–1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geist, N. R. and Jones, T. D. 1996. Juvenile skeletal structure and the reproductive habits of dinosaurs. Science 272, 712–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godwin, J., Hartman, V., Grammer, M., and Crews, D. 1996. Progesterone inhibits female-typical receptive behavior and decreases hypothalamic estrogen and progesterone receptor messenger ribonucleic acid levels in whiptail lizards (Genus Cnemidophorus). Hormones and Behavior 30, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, H. W. 1988. Antipredator mechanisms in reptiles. In Gans, C. and Huey, R. B. (eds.) Biology of the Reptilia, vol. 16, pp. 1–152. New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
Groot, T. V. M., Bruins, E., and Breeuwer, J. A. J. 2003. Molecular genetic evidence for parthenogenesis in the Burmese python, Python molurus bivittatus. Heredity 90, 130–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guillette, L. J. 1981. On the occurence of oviparous and viviparous forms of the Mexican lizard Sceloporu aeneus. Herpetologica 37, 11–15.Google Scholar
Guillette, L. J., Jones, K., Fitzgerald, T., and Smith, H. M. 1980. Evolution of viviparity in the lizard genus Sceloporus. Herpetologica 36, 201–215.Google Scholar
Harlow, P. S. 2000. Incubation temperature determines hatchling sex in Australian rock dragons (Agamidae: Genus Ctenophorus). Copeia, 958–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, P. S. and Taylor, J. E. 2000. Reproductive ecology of the jacky dragon (Amphibolurus muricatus): an agamid lizard with temperature-dependent sex determination. Austral Ecology 25, 640–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heulin, B., Ghielmi, S., Vogrin, N., Surget-Groba, Y., and Guillaume, C. P. 2002. Variation in eggshell characteristics and in intrauterine egg retention between two oviparous clades of the lizard Lacerta vivipara: insight into the oviparity–viviparity continuum in squamates. Journal of Morphology 252, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hews, D. K. 1988. Resource defense and sexual selection on male head size in the lizard Uta palmeri. American Zoologist 28, A52.Google Scholar
Hews, D. K., Knapp, R., and Moore, M. C. 1994. Early exposure to androgens affects adult expression of alternative male types in tree lizards. Hormones and Behavior 28, 96–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horner, J. R. 2000. Dinosaur reproduction and parenting. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 28, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horner, J. R. and Makela, R. 1979. Nest of juveniles provides evidence of family structure among dinosaurs. Nature 282, 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
How, T. L. and Bull, C. M. 2002. Reunion vigour: an experimental test of the mate guarding hypothesis in the monogamous sleepy lizard (Tiliqua rugosa). Journal of Zoology (London) 257, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R. S. and Lively, C. M. 1998. The maintenance of sex by parasitism and mutation accumulation under epistatic fitness functions. Evolution 52, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, R., Hews, D. K., Thompson, C. W., Ray, L. E., and Moore, M. C. 2003. Environmental and endocrine correlates of tactic switching by nonterritorial male tree lizards (Urosaurus ornatus). Hormones and Behavior 43, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, J. W., Whitaker, R., and Andrews, H. 1986. Male parental care in mugger crocodiles. National Geographic Research 2, 519–525.Google Scholar
Lockley, M., Schulp, A. S., Meyer, C. A., Leonardi, G., and Mamani, D. K. 2002. Titanosaurid trackways from the Upper Cretaceous of Bolivia: evidence for large manus, wide-gauge locomotion and gregarious behaviour. Cretaceous Research 23, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. and Gabriel, W. 1990. Mutation load and the survival of small populations. Evolution 44, 1725–1737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J., and Hakansson, T. 1992. Why do female adders copulate so frequently?Nature 355, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. 1978. The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Milnes, M. R., Roberts, R. N., and Guillette, L. J. 2002. Effects of incubation temperature and estrogen exposure on aromatase activity in the brain and gonads of embryonic alligators. Environmental Health Perspectives 110, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, M. C. and Crews, D. 1986. Sex steroid hormones in natural populations of a sexual whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus inornatus, a direct evolutionary ancestor of a unisexual, parthenogenic lizard. General and Comparative Endorcinology 63, 424–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. C., Hews, D. K., and Knapp, R. 1998. Hormonal control and evolution of alternative male phenotypes: generalizations of models for sexual differentiation. American Zoologist 38, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moritz, C. 1983. Parthenogenesis in the endemic Australian lizard Heteronotia binoei (Gekkonidae). Science 220, 735–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morjan, C. L. and Janzen, F. J. 2003. Nest temperature is not related to egg size in a turtle with temperature-dependent sex determination. Copeia, 366–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, R. W., Fu, J. Z., Macculloch, R. D., Darevsky, I. S., and Kupriyanova, L. A. 2000. A fine line between sex and unisexuality: the phylogenetic constraints on parthenogenesis in lacertid lizards. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 130, 527–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, R. A. 1980. The Brahminy blind snake (Ramphotyphlops braminus) in the Seychelles Archipelago: distribution, variation, and further evidence for parthenogenesis. Herpetologica 36, 215–221.Google Scholar
Nuzhdin, S. V. and Petrov, D. A. 2003. Transposable elements in clonal lineages: lethal hangover from sex. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 79, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, M., Madsen, T., Shine, R., Gullberg, A., and Tegelstrom, H. 1994. Rewards of promiscuity. Nature 372, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, M., Shine, R., Gullberg, A., Madsen, T., and Tegelström, H. 1996. Female lizards control paternity of their offspring by selective use of sperm. Nature 383, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, M., Madsen, T., and Shine, R. 1997. Is sperm really so cheap? Costs of reproduction in male adders, Vipera berus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 264, 455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, G. C., Packard, M. J., Miller, K., and Boardman, T. J. 1987. Influence of moisture, temperature, and substrate on snapping turtle eggs and embryos. Ecology (Tempe) 68, 983–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, S. G. and Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 2000. Nesting ecology of the American crocodile in the coastal zone of Belize. Copeia, 869–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. and Chippindale, A. K. 2001. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14, 685–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. and Holland, B. 1997. The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, C. F. D., Bergallo, H. G., and Peccinini Seale, D. 1997. Evidence of a unisexual population of the Brazilian whiptail lizard genus Cnemidophorus (Teiidae), with description of a new species. Herpetologica 53, 374–382.Google Scholar
Seigel, R. A. and Ford, N. B. 1987. Reproductive ecology. In Seigel, R. A., Collins, J. T., and Novak, S. S. (eds.) Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, pp. 210–252. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shine, R. 1985. The evolution of viviparity in reptiles: an ecological analysis. In Gans, C. and Billett, F. (eds.) Biology of the Reptilia, vol. 0, pp. 00–00. New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
Shine, R. 1999. Why is sex determined by nest temperature in many reptiles?Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 186–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shine, R. and Greer, A. E. 1991. Why are clutch sizes more variable in some species than in others?Evolution 45, 1696–1706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shine, R. and Guillette, L. J. 1988. The evolution of viviparity in reptiles: a physiological model and its ecological consequences. Journal of Theoretical Biology 132, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, R. and Mason, R. T. 2001. Courting male garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) use multiple cues to identify potential mates. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, R., Olsson, M. M., and Mason, R. T. 2000. Chastity belts in gartersnakes: the functional significance of mating plugs. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 70, 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, R., Elphick, M. J., and Donnellan, S. 2002. Co-occurrence of multiple, supposedly incompatible modes of sex determination in a lizard population. Ecology Letters 5, 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, R., Phillips, B., Waye, H., LeMaster, M., and Mason, R. T. 2003. Chemosensory cues allow courting male garter snakes to assess body length and body condition of potential mates. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54, 162–166.Google Scholar
Sinervo, B. 1993. The effect of offspring size on physiology and life history: manipulation of size using allometric engineering. BioScience 43, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. 1994. Experimental tests of reproductive allocation paradigms. In Vitt, L. J. and Pianka, E. R. (eds.) Lizard Ecology: Historical and Experimental Perspectives, pp. 73–93. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. 2001. Selection in local neighborhoods, graininess of social environments, and the ecology of alternative strategies. In Editor (ed.) Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology, pp. 191–226. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sinervo, B. and Calsbeek, R. 2003. Physiological epistasis, ontogenetic conflict and natural selection on physiology and life history. Integrative and Comparative Biology 43, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinervo, B. and Clobert, J. 2003. Morphs, dispersal behavior, genetic similarity, and the evolution of cooperation. Science 300, 1949–1951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinervo, B. and Lively, C. M. 1996. The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies. Nature 380, 240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B., Svensson, E., and Comendant, T. 2000. Density cycles and an offspring quantity and quality game driven by natural selection. Nature 406, 985–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinervo, B., Bleay, C., and Adamopoulou, C. 2001. Social causes of correlational selection and the resolution of a heritable throat color polymorphism in a lizard. Evolution 55, 2040–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, J. 1994. Territorial Behavior: Testing the Assumptions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stamps, J. A. and Krishnan, V. V. 1994a. Territory acquisition in lizards. 1. First encounters. Animal Behaviour 47, 1375–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, J. A. and Krishnan, V. V. 1994b. Territory acquisition in lizards. 2. Establishing social and spatial relationships. Animal Behaviour 47, 1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamps, J. A. and Krishnan, V. V. 1995. Territory acquisition in lizards. 3. Competing for space. Animal Behaviour 49, 679–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surget-Groba, Y., Heulin, B., Guillaume, G. P., et al. 2001. Intraspecific phylogeography of Lacerta vivipara and the evolution of viviparity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 18, 449–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, C. W. and Moore, M. C. 1991a. Syntopic occurence of multiple dewlap color morphs in male tree lizards. Copeia 1991, 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C. W. and Moore, M. C. 1991b. Throat colour reliably signals status in male tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus. Animal Behaviour 42, 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C. W., Moore, I. T., and Moore, M. C. 1993. Social, environment and genetic factors in the ontogeny of phenotypic differentiation in a lizard with alternative male reproductive strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vacquier, V. D. 1995. Evolution of gamete recognition. Science 281, 1995–1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varricchio, D. J., Jackson, F., Borkowski, J. J., and Horner, J. R. 1997. Nest and egg clutches of the dinosaur Troodon formosus and the evolution of avian reproductive traits. Nature 385, 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology 58, 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikelski, M., Carbone, C., and Trillmich, F. 1996. Lekking in marine iguanas: female grouping and male reproductive strategies. Animal Behaviour 52, 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasui, Y. 2001. Female multiple mating as a genetic bet-hedging strategy when mate choice criteria are unreliable. Ecological Research 16, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamudio, K. and Sinervo, B. 2000. Polygyny, mate-guarding, and posthumous fertilizations as alternative male strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, 14427–14432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×