4.7 Article

Effects of global warming on sensory ecology of rock lizards: increased temperatures alter the efficacy of sexual chemical signals

期刊

FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 1332-1340

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12128

关键词

chemoreception; climate warming; femoral secretions; intraspecific communication; pheromones; sexual selection

类别

资金

  1. [MICIIN-CGL2011-24150/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. An almost neglected aspect of climate change is its effects on sensory ecology and sexual signals of animals. Signals used in intraspecific communication are expected to evolve to maximize efficacy under a given climatic condition, but it is unlikely that quick changes in environmental conditions could be compensated by similarly quick evolutionary changes in the design of signals. We predict that global warming will lead to a loss of efficacy of some sexual signals, with important consequences for sexual selection. 2. We examined experimentally the effects of global warming on the efficacy of chemical signals of a mountain lizard (Iberolacerta cyreni). 3. We first showed how environmental temperatures in the study area during the mating season of lizards have actually increased in the last years. Then, we tested whether female lizards were able to detect by chemosensory cues the males' scent marks (i.e. femoral secretions) that were experimentally maintained under current and predicted future temperature conditions. 4. Results showed that the efficacy (i.e. detectability and persistence) of scent marks is lower at high temperature. Moreover, we showed that scent-marked substrates maintained under high temperatures were not selected by females, in contrast to the selection of areas scent marked by males, when these substrates were maintained under normal temperatures. 5. Our study suggests that climate warming could lead to negative changes in the efficacy of sexual signals with potential consequences for the sexual selection and conservation of threatened lizard species.

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

4.7
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