4.2 Article

Deep nesting in a lizard, deja vu devil's corkscrews: first helical reptile burrow and deepest vertebrate nest

期刊

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 116, 期 1, 页码 13-26

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/bij.12589

关键词

Daimonelix; Diictodon; eggs; nest-site choice; Palaeocastor; Varanus panoptes

资金

  1. Stop the Toad Foundation
  2. Monash University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dating back to 255Mya, a diversity of vertebrate species have excavated mysterious, deep helical burrows called Daimonelix (devil's corkscrews). The possible functions of such structures are manifold, but their paucity in extant animals has frustrated their adaptive explanation. We recently discovered the first helical reptile burrows, created by the monitor lizard Varanus panoptes. The plugged burrows terminated in nest chambers that were the deepest known of any vertebrate, and by far the deepest of any reptile (mean=2.3m, range=1.0-3.6m, N=52). A significant positive relationship between soil moisture and nest depth persisted at depths >1m, suggesting that deep nesting in V.panoptes may be an evolutionary response to egg desiccation during the long (approximately8months) dry season incubation period. Alternatively, lizards may avoid shallower nesting because even slight daily temperature fluctuations are detrimental to developing embryos; our data show that this species may have the most stable incubation environment of any reptile and possibly any ectotherm. Soil-filled burrows do not support the hypothesis generated for Daimonelix that the helix would provide more consistent temperature and humidity as a result of limited air circulation in dry palaeoclimates. We suggest that Daimonelix were used mainly for nesting or rearing young, because helical burrows of extant vertebrates are generally associated with a nest. The extraordinary nesting in this lizard reflects a system in which adaptive hypotheses for the function of fossil helical burrows can be readily tested.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据