4.0 Article

Seasonal Dissociation in Fossorial Activity between the Llanos' Frog Populations as a Survival Strategy in Arid Subtropical Environments

期刊

JOURNAL OF HERPETOLOGY
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 442-451

出版社

SOC STUDY AMPHIBIANS REPTILES
DOI: 10.1670/20-096

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. SECYT-UNC
  2. FONCyT Argentina [PICT 2017-2666]
  3. FONCyT [PICT 2014/1343, 2014/1930, 2014/2035, 2015/0813, 2015/0820, 2015/2381]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study explores how two populations of the fossorial frog adjust their activity patterns in different geographical areas to retain their ecological niche characteristics, indicating that seasonal activity is a strategy to conserve their climatic niche.
Among amphibians, the fossorial habit is an evolutionary strategy to maintain their niches along space and time, avoiding hostile climate conditions. The fossorial frog Lepidobatrachus Ilanensis has evolved in temperate regions, adapted and distributed in arid subtropical environments, and is divided into two well-defined and isolated populations (northern and southern). In this study, we analyze if these two populations have adjusted their activity patterns (i.e., feeding and reproduction) as a strategy to retain their ecological niche characteristics along a semiarid latitudinal gradient. We modeled and characterized the ecological niches via Euclidean distance to the ecological niche centroid of the entire species under the false premise that the two populations are equally active throughout the year (i.e., annual niche). Then, we repeated the exercise considering the niches for the two populations (by estimating their real seasonal niche activity). We also performed comparisons between both populations via a similarity test. Our results suggest that both populations are active in similar climatic conditions but in different (dissociated) temporalities, suggesting that seasonal activity in fossorial species is a strategy to conserve their climatic niche in two different geographical areas across the year.

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

4.0
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