Next Article in Journal
Investigating Genetic Diversity and Genomic Signatures of Hatchery-Induced Evolution in Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata) Populations
Next Article in Special Issue
Evolutionary Ecology of Lizards: Lessons from a Special Issue
Previous Article in Journal
Issi saaneq gen. et sp. nov.—A New Sauropodomorph Dinosaur from the Late Triassic (Norian) of Jameson Land, Central East Greenland
Previous Article in Special Issue
Does Hyperoxia Restrict Pyrenean Rock Lizards Iberolacerta bonnali to High Elevations?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/d13110562
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Caudal Autotomy on the Locomotor Performance of Micrablepharus Atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae)

by
Naiane Arantes Silva
1,
Gabriel Henrique de Oliveira Caetano
2,
Pedro Henrique Campelo
3,
Vitor Hugo Gomes Lacerda Cavalcante
4,
Leandro Braga Godinho
1,
Donald Bailey Miles
5,
Henrique Monteiro Paulino
3,
Júlio Miguel Alvarenga da Silva
1,
Bruno Araújo de Souza
1,
Hosmano Batista Ferreira da Silva
1 and
Guarino Rinaldi Colli
3,*
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação, Campus Nova Xavantina, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Rua Prof. Dr. Renato Figueiro Varella, Nova Xavantina 78690, MT, Brazil
2
Jacob Blaustein Center for Scientific Cooperation, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion 849900, Israel
3
Departamento de Zoologia, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Universidade de Brasília, Asa Norte, Brasília 70910, DF, Brazil
4
Instituto Federal do Piauí, Teresina 64000-040, Piauí, Brazil
5
Department of Biology, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2021, 13(11), 562; https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110562
Submission received: 6 July 2021 / Revised: 7 September 2021 / Accepted: 9 September 2021 / Published: 4 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evolutionary Ecology of Lizards)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Caudal autotomy is a striking adaptation used by many lizard species to evade predators. Most studies to date indicate that caudal autotomy impairs lizard locomotor performance. Surprisingly, some species bearing the longest tails show negligible impacts of caudal autotomy on sprint speed. Part of this variation has been attributed to lineage effects. For the first time, we model the effects of caudal autotomy on the locomotor performance of a gymnophthalmid lizard, Micrablepharus atticolus, which has a long and bright blue tail. To improve model accuracy, we incorporated the effects of several covariates. We found that body temperature, pregnancy, mass, collection site, and the length of the regenerated portion of the tail were the most important predictors of locomotor performance. However, sprint speed was unaffected by tail loss. Apparently, the long tail of M. atticolus is more useful when using undulation amidst the leaf litter and not when using quadrupedal locomotion on a flat surface. Our findings highlight the intricate relationships among physiological, morphological, and behavioral traits. We suggest that future studies about the impacts of caudal autotomy among long-tailed lizards should consider the role of different microhabitats/substrates on locomotor performance, using laboratory conditions that closely mimic their natural environments.

1. Introduction

Throughout evolutionary time, an “arms race” fostered varied strategies of prey capture and predator escape [1]. Autotomy—the self-amputation of a body part in response to an attack by a predator—is one of the most dramatic adaptations to avoid predation [2]. Caudal autotomy among reptiles has an ancient origin and was present in captorhinids from the Early Permian [3]. It persists to this day among squamate reptiles, in some species of snakes and most lizards, allowing them to escape while the predator is distracted by the abandoned tail part [4,5,6,7]. The detachment of the tail in most species occurs through pre-established, intravertebral fracture planes, the oldest and most common form of autotomy to date, allowing a new tail to grow supported by a calcified cartilage tube [8,9,10,11].
Despite the immediate benefit of avoiding predation, autotomy also involves energy costs that can influence survival. For instance, even when resources are limiting, tail regeneration is a priority, probably associated with long-term survival and reproductive success [12,13]. Thus, the production of a new tail can negatively affect energy balance, immunity, growth rate, social status, and immediate reproductive success [2,14]. Besides, autotomy results in the temporary loss of an important mechanism to avoid predation. Therefore, autotomized individuals may alter their patterns of activity and space use, as well as foraging schedules and frequencies, to minimize exposure to predators [15,16].
In addition to affecting behavior, caudal autotomy affects the locomotor performance of some species. The tail is a counterweight, balancing the head and body during racing; therefore, its absence results in weight transfer to the forelimbs, making it challenging to move [4]. Moreover, the tail can act as an inertial damper of pelvic girdle movements, and its loss causes disordered oscillation of the hind limbs during the race [5] and reduced jump stability and performance [17]. In general, caudal autotomy leads to decreased locomotor performance [18]. However, it may not interfere [19,20] or even increase locomotor performance [21]. These opposite results may relate to interspecific differences in predation intensity throughout ontogeny, life habits, and sexual dimorphism [15]. For example, in sexually dimorphic species where males have conspicuous coloration, their locomotor performance is little affected by autotomy, as potential predators and competitors can easily see them [18,22]. Still, variation exists between and within evolutionary lineages associated with different tail shapes and functions, such as sexual displays, predator distraction, defense, balance, fat storage, stabilization, and an auxiliary organ in climbing [20,23].
The lizard genus Micrablepharus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae) contains two species: M. maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lütken, 1861), widely distributed across the South American dry diagonal, comprising the Chaco, Cerrado, and Caatinga, and M. atticolus Rodrigues, 1996, endemic to the Cerrado [24,25,26,27]. The two species are diurnal, semifossorial, and live among the leaf litter [28,29,30,31]. Reproductive activity peaks in the dry season, and populations undergo an almost complete annual replacement [32,33]. They share an elongate trunk and tail, short limbs, and digit reduction on the forelimbs (complete loss of digit I), whereas the hindlimbs follow the pentadactyl condition [34,35]. They exhibit intermittent quadrupedal locomotion, combining conspicuous axial traveling waves with trot-like coordination of the limbs [36,37,38]. The vertebral axis is the main effector of locomotion, while the limbs play an auxiliary role. On low friction substrates, the axial system of locomotion predominates, but the limbs become increasingly involved as substrate friction increases and with increasing speed [37]. Micrablepharus atticolus and M. maximiliani have a long and bright blue tail that contributes to divert attention from visually oriented predators to a non-vital part of the body at the time of an attack, which may be associated with higher rates of autotomy in more open environments [39].
Tail loss in Micrablepharus atticolus does not affect body condition, suggesting that the energetic costs of autotomy are low or that individuals compensate for the tail loss by increasing foraging rate [39]. Consequently, autotomy may not impair locomotor performance by reducing energy reserves [40]. However, because of the importance of the axial system during locomotion [37], tail loss may compromise sprint speed. Locomotor performance is an essential determinant of fitness, because its reduction can undermine survival, reproductive success [41,42], foraging [43,44], and social dominance [45]. Since environmental variation affects autotomy rates in M. atticolus, but these do not affect survival [39], studying the effect of autotomy on the locomotor performance of lizards inhabiting different environments can contribute to the understanding of possible compensatory mechanisms.
Here, we investigate the effects of caudal autotomy on the locomotor performance of Micrablepharus atticolus from two different environments, one in the central Cerrado and another in the Cerrado-Amazonia transition. We take into account the effects of geography, sex, body temperature, and ontogeny since (1) locomotor performance tends to be lower in females, especially during pregnancy, by the effect of the additional burden represented by the litter [46,47]; (2) there is a positive allometric relationship between body size and locomotor performance [48]; and (3) central Cerrado lizards are expected to have better locomotor performance, assuming that environmental conditions should be optimal for performance in the core of species distributions [49]. Moreover, we investigate whether the effects of autotomy on locomotor performance are proportional to the size of the remaining or regenerated portion of the tail [50].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

We collected data from lizards captured at two sites: Reserva do IBGE (15°56′06″ S, 47°52′09″ W), a protected area in Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil, in the central area of the Cerrado; and Parque do Bacaba (14°42′24″ S, 52°21′10″ W), Nova Xavantina, Mato Grosso, Brazil, in the Cerrado-Amazon transition. The climate in both sites is tropical with dry winter, Aw in Köppen’s classification [51], with a dry season from May to September and a rainy season from October to April. In Brasília, the average annual accumulated precipitation is 1477.4 mm, and the average annual temperature is 21.0 °C; in Nova Xavantina, 1417.7 mm and 24.8 °C, respectively (https://portal.inmet.gov.br/normais, accessed on 30 March 2021).

2.2. Lizard Sampling

We captured lizards using arrays of pitfall traps interconnected by drift fences, as part of a long-term, mark-recapture study on their demography and community dynamics. Each array consisted of four plastic buckets of 35 L, buried to ground level and arranged in the form of a “Y”, interconnected by three 6 m long and 50 cm high galvanized steel plates that functioned as guide fences. Immediately after capture, we took the following measurements from each lizard: body mass, using a Pesola spring dynamometer (0.1 g precision); snout-vent length (SVL), total tail length, and length of the non-autotomized part of the tail—in lizards with caudal autotomy—with a metal ruler (1 mm precision); and sex, whenever possible, through palpation of the abdomen for the presence of vitellogenic follicles or eggs in pregnant females and the extrusion of the hemipenis in males. Next, we transported lizards to the lab and housed them in individual terraria, with vermiculite substrate and water ad libitum. Up to 24 h after capture, we carried out ecophysiology experiments (below), after which we permanently marked (by toe-clipping) and released lizards next to their exact capture sites. We captured and handled all individuals with great care to prevent any damage to the tail, such that autotomized tails resulted exclusively from natural processes. Finally, we only used adult individuals in the analyses, comprising 39 lizards from Brasília and 64 from Nova Xavantina. We considered individuals with SVL greater than 35 mm as adults [32].

2.3. Locomotor Performance

We recorded sprint speed on a wooden track (300 cm long × 30 cm high × 40 cm wide). We induced each lizard to run as fast as possible by manual stimulation, mimicking a predatory chase, to record the maximum speed. Due to the thermal sensitivity of sprint speed [52], we conducted runs at three different temperatures—cold (=ambient −5 °C), ambient (~20 °C), and hot (=ambient +5 °C)—in each experiment. We used gel ice packs and incandescent lamps to alter lizards’ body temperature, monitored with a fast-reading cloacal thermometer (L-K Industries Miller & Weber T-6000 Cloacal 0/50 °C 0.2 precision). We conducted two trials of each lizard at each temperature, totaling six runs. We recorded runs at 420 fps with a Casio HS EX-FH25 digital camera mounted on an aluminum tripod at 1.5 m height in the center of the track. Later, we analyzed videos with Tracker 4.80 to obtain the maximum sprint speed of each lizard at each temperature.
Within at least one hour after the last run, we measured the critical thermal minimum and maximum, with a one-hour interval between them, using a fast-reading cloacal thermometer (L-K Industries Miller & Weber T-6000 Cloacal 0/50 °C 0.2 precision). We exposed lizards to the sources of heat and cold mentioned above until they lost the righting response, i.e., when they could not return to the prone position after turning in a supine position without leading the animal to death. To build performance curves (below), we considered that sprint speed is equal to zero at the critical thermal minimum and maximum. The Animal Use Ethics Committee of the University of Brasília approved all procedures (process 33786/2016).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

To determine the effect of caudal autotomy on locomotor performance, we built generalized mixed-effects additive models—GAMMs [53] with the MGCV package [54] in the R environment [55]. We used GAMMs to generate performance curves and evaluate the influence of predictors on the shape and location of curves because they allow nonlinear responses and are flexible due to the non-parametric smoothing functions used in sections of the data [56]. In these models, we used the maximum sprint speed as the response variable; the individual as a random factor; and sex, pregnancy (gravid/non-gravid), body temperature, mass, SVL, relative tail length (total tail length/SVL), caudal autotomy (autotomized/not autotomized), relative length of the regenerated portion of the tail (length of the regenerated portion of tail/SVL), and study site (Brasília/Nova Xavantina) as fixed factors. To assess model significance, we used a likelihood-ratio test comparing its fit with that of a null model, composed only of the response variable, the intercept, and the random factor.
To evaluate predictor importance, we used a combination of model selection and averaging based on the Akaike Information Criterion adjusted for small samples (AICc), with the package MuMIn [57]. Model selection attempts to improve our understanding of the relationship between the response and the predictors by reducing model’s complexity. However, this approach often results in biased regression parameters and too small respective standard errors in finite samples because they do not reflect the uncertainty related to the model selection process [58,59]. On the other hand, model averaging incorporates the uncertainty intrinsic to model selection by combining parameter estimates across different models [60,61]. Using this approach, we examined the complete set of possible models combining the fixed effects to obtain model-averaged standardized parameter estimates for statistical inference [62,63]. We used averages calculated across all models (“full averages”), assuming that each model includes all variables, but that in some models the corresponding coefficient (and its respective variance) is set to zero, which avoids biasing the values away from zero [64]. Moreover, we calculated the importance of each predictor as the sum of Akaike weights across all models containing that predictor.

3. Results

We obtained ecophysiological data from 39 lizards from Brasília and 64 lizards from Nova Xavantina (Table 1). The likelihood-ratio test indicated that our full GAMM differed significantly from a null model and adequately fitted the data (χ2[1] = 219.129, p < 0.001, adjusted-r2 = 0.622). Among the parametric terms in the model, collection site and pregnancy were significant, while among smooth terms, body temperature, body mass, and the length of the regenerated portion of the tail were significant (Table 2). Model selection and averaging indicated that body temperature, pregnancy, mass, collection site, and the length of the regenerated portion of the tail, in this order, were the most important predictors of locomotor performance in Micrablepharus atticolus (Table 3). The GAMM predicted maximum locomotor performance around 31 °C (Figure 1A). Gravid females had lower performance than males and non-gravid females (Figure 1B), and lizards from Nova Xavantina achieved higher performance—and at higher temperatures—than lizards from Brasília (Figure 1C). Finally, the locomotor performance increased with body mass (Figure 2A) and the relative length of the regenerated portion of the tail (Figure 2B).

4. Discussion

We assessed the effects of caudal autotomy on the locomotor performance of Micrablepharus atticolus, controlling for the influence of several covariates. We found that the performance is significantly affected by body temperature, female reproductive condition, body mass, geography, and caudal autotomy. Overall, our findings highlight the complex patterns of association among physiological, morphological, and behavioral traits and that meaningful inference and prediction based on physiological performance must consider such patterns [65,66,67,68].
Body temperature was the foremost factor affecting performance. This outcome is not surprising, given that body temperature is one of the most critical ecophysiological variables affecting the performance of ectotherms [69,70,71]. Sprint speed peaked at ca. 31 °C, which is substantially higher than that recorded for Caparaonia itaiquara (24.51 °C) and Colobodactylus dalcianus (25.81 °C), two closely related gymnophthalmines from high-elevation areas in the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil [72,73]. Moreover, our analyses showed that lizards from Nova Xavantina achieve higher sprint speeds at higher body temperatures than lizards from Brasília. Such differences might be related to altitudinal, latitudinal, or even lineage effects [74]. As environmental temperatures in Nova Xavantina are ca. 4 °C higher than in Brasília (and even higher than in high elevations of southeastern Brazil), our results are consistent with the notion that geographic variation of thermal sensitivity in locomotor performance is adaptive, such that organisms adjust optimal performance temperatures to prevalent field body temperatures [67]. For instance, based on the principle that biochemical and physiological systems operating at high temperatures have a high catalytic capacity, the “hotter is better” hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between maximal organismal performance and optimal temperatures [75]. This relationship holds when considering interspecific [65,76] or intraspecific comparisons [77,78].
Whereas Brasília is at the core of Micrablepharus atticolus’ geographic distribution, Nova Xavantina is closer to its periphery, next to the Cerrado–Amazonia ecotone [26,79]. Therefore, we expected higher physiological performance in the core population, as predicted by the core-periphery hypothesis [49,80]. However, we found the opposite pattern, with higher performance in the more peripheral population. Several factors might account for this result. For example, despite the centrality difference between the two sites relative to the species’ range, they might have the same or even opposite patterns of environmental suitability, i.e., the geometric center of the geographic distribution may not coincide with areas of greater suitability and vice-versa [81,82]. Moreover, due to phenotypic plasticity or adaptation to local conditions, species range boundaries may not be driven by thermal performance [72,83].
Our analysis indicates no intersexual differences in sprint speed in Micrablepharus atticolus, most likely related to the lack of sexual size dimorphism [29]. However, we found that pregnant females have lower locomotor performance than males. This decrease likely occurs due to the additional physical load of the litter, making the body broader and heavier [84]. However, as locomotor performance increased with body mass, the lower performance in pregnant females may be related to physiological changes linked to reproduction [85], such as decreased muscle strength, reduced metabolic capacity, motivation to escape [86], and energy allocation [87]. These physiological changes ensure adequate embryonic development and remain for a while after egg-laying [85,88]. A decrease in gravid females’ locomotor performance was also recorded in other lizard species [89,90,91,92,93]. By becoming slower, pregnant females are more susceptible to predation, and this can promote several behavioral changes during pregnancy, such as foraging near potential shelters and avoiding long races during a predatory escape.
The body mass of individuals is an essential factor in determining sprint speed [76]. We found continuously increased performance with increasing body mass, which would probably occur until the optimal mass is reached, beyond which performance decreases [94,95]. This increase in performance with body mass is typical among quadruped species [45,76,96,97]. Despite using lateral undulation when moving in the middle of the leaf litter, Micrablepharus atticolus can also rely on quadrupedal locomotion when on a flat substrate [36,37]. We advance that the ever-increasing locomotor performance associated with increased body mass results from the very short lifespan of M. atticolus [32], such that individuals never reach a critical body mass.
In most cases, the tail has an active role in improving lizard sprint speed, and caudal autotomy undermines locomotor performance [14,20]. Moreover, the greater the relative size of the intact tail, the higher the magnitude of sprint speed change following autotomy. However, we found that sprint speed was unaffected by tail loss but by the relative length of the regenerated portion of the tail, i.e., the longer the regenerated tail, the higher the sprint speed. Still, this effect was meager, unlike patterns documented elsewhere for eublepharids, lacertids, and skinks, [46,98,99,100]. Caudal autotomy has no impact on the locomotor performance of some lizard species [19,20]. Some researchers have argued that this reflects these species’ skinny and short tails [19] or even that adverse effects of autotomy result from researchers damaging the lizards’ locomotor muscles during experimental tail breakage [101]. Individuals of Micrablepharus atticolus have a long tail (in our samples, ~1.7× SVL in individuals with intact tails), one of the longest among gymnophthalmids [102], and we used lizards with naturally broken and regenerated tails. Therefore, these explanations cannot account for the patterns we observed.
A synthesis on the effects of tail autotomy, tail size, and locomotor performance in lizards identified clear phylogenetic patterns in the data [20]. Hence, among-lineage differences in the biomechanics of locomotion and the tail function during sprinting may account for the different effects of tail loss on locomotor performance. The single previous study on the locomotion of Micrablepharus did not address the impact of caudal autotomy on performance [37], and to the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study on this issue within Gymnophthalmidae. This lineage comprises small, cryptic, and often fossorial or semifossorial Neotropical species, characterized by many instances of the evolution of body elongation and limb reduction [34,35,103]. Indeed, fossoriality is a critical driver of the evolution of a snake-like morphology among squamates [104,105]. Therefore, in such species, the tail may have a very context-specific role in locomotion, which may not be apparent when individuals move on a flat substrate. For instance, in Colobodactylus taunayi, a gymnophthalmine, the tail remains stretched during displacement on a flat surface [102] and a similar pattern is apparent in M. maximiliani when moving on gravel or sand (Figures 3 and 6 in [37]). Tail loss in lizards of the genus Takydromus, where the tail can be three times as long as the SVL, similarly had little effect on locomotor performance [20,50,106]. These species often use a three-dimensional, cluttered environment amidst the leaf litter, much like “grass-swimmer” lizards [107,108]. We conjecture that the long tail of M. atticolus is more useful when using undulation amidst the leaf litter and not when using quadrupedal locomotion on a flat surface. Future studies on the impacts of caudal autotomy on long-tailed lizards should consider the role of different microhabitats/substrates on locomotor performance, using laboratory conditions that closely mimic their natural environment.

Author Contributions

N.A.S., H.M.P. and G.R.C. conceived the study, conducted the analyses, and wrote the manuscript. All authors participated in fieldwork, lab work, data collection and curation, and revised the manuscript. D.B.M., G.H.d.O.C. and G.R.C. provided planning and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

GRC was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF) and the USAID’s PEER program under cooperative agreement AID-OAA-A-11-00012 for financial support. DBM was supported by NSF (1241848, 1950636).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Brasília (protocol code UnBDoc33786/2016 from 11 April 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Brasília (protocol code UnBDoc33786/2016 from 11 April 2016).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in Dryad at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.gxd2547nc.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. Arms races between and within species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1979, 205, 489–511. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Emberts, Z.; Escalante, I.; Bateman, P.W. The ecology and evolution of autotomy. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 1881–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. LeBlanc, A.R.H.; MacDougall, M.J.; Haridy, Y.; Scott, D.; Reisz, R.R. Caudal autotomy as anti-predatory behaviour in Palaeozoic reptiles. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arnold, E.N. Caudal autotomy as a defense. In Biology of the Reptilia. Ecology B: Defense and Life History; Gans, C., Huey, R.B., Eds.; Alan R. Liss, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1988; Volume 16. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold, E.N. Evolutionary aspects of tail shedding in lizards and their relatives. J. Nat. Hist. 1984, 18, 127–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Clause, A.R.; Capaldi, E.A. Caudal autotomy and regeneration in lizards. J. Exp. Zool. Part A 2006, 305, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bellairs, A.d.A.; Bryant, S.V. Autotomy and regeneration in reptiles. In Biology of the Reptilia, Volume 15, Development B; Gans, C., Billet, F., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1985; pp. 301–410. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gilbert, E.A.B.; Payne, S.L.; Vickaryous, M.K. The anatomy and histology of caudal autotomy and regeneration in lizards. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2013, 86, 631–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ritzman, T.B.; Stroik, L.K.; Julik, E.; Hutchins, E.D.; Lasku, E.; Denardo, D.F.; Wilson-Rawls, J.; Rawls, J.A.; Kusumi, K.; Fisher, R.E. The gross anatomy of the original and regenerated tail in the green anole (Anolis carolinensis). Anat. Rec. 2012, 295, 1596–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alibardi, L. Development of the axial cartilaginous skeleton in the regenerating tail of lizards. Bull. Assoc. Anat. 1995, 79, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fisher, R.E.; Geiger, L.A.; Stroik, L.K.; Hutchins, E.D.; George, R.M.; Denardo, D.F.; Kusumi, K.; Rawls, J.A.; Wilson-Rawls, J. A histological comparison of the original and regenerated tail in the green anole, Anolis carolinensis. Anat. Rec. 2012, 295, 1609–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Maginnis, T.L. The costs of autotomy and regeneration in animals: A review and framework for future research. Behav. Ecol. 2006, 17, 857–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lynn, S.E.; Borkovic, B.P.; Russell, A.P. Relative apportioning of resources to the body and regenerating tail in juvenile leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius) maintained on different dietary rations. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2013, 86, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bateman, P.W.; Fleming, P.A. To cut a long tail short: A review of lizard caudal autotomy studies carried out over the last 20 years. J. Zool. 2009, 277, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cooper, W.E., Jr.; Smith, C.S. Costs and economy of autotomy for tail movement and running speed in the skink Trachylepis maculilabris. Can. J. Zool. 2009, 87, 400–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cromie, G.L.; Chapple, D.G. Impact of tail loss on the behaviour and locomotor performance of two sympatric Lampropholis skink species. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e34732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Gillis, G.B.; Bonvini, L.A.; Irschick, D.J. Losing stability: Tail loss and jumping in the arboreal lizard Anolis carolinensis. J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 212, 604–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Anderson, M.L.; Cavalieri, C.N.; Rodríguez-Romero, F.; Fox, S.F. The differential effect of tail autotomy on sprint performance between the sexes in the lizard Uta stansburiana. J. Herpetol. 2012, 46, 648–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huey, R.B.; Dunham, A.E.; Overall, K.L.; Newman, R.A. Variation in locomotor performance in demographically known populations of the lizard Sceloporus merriami. Physiol. Zool. 1990, 63, 845–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. McElroy, E.J.; Bergmann, P.J. Tail autotomy, tail size, and locomotor performance in lizards. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2013, 86, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Daniels, C.B. Running: An escape strategy enhanced by autotomy. Herpetologica 1983, 39, 162–165. [Google Scholar]
  22. Naidenov, L.A.; Allen, W.L. Tail autotomy works as a pre-capture defense by deflecting attacks. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 3058–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Vitt, L.J.; Congdon, J.D.; Dickson, N.A. Adaptive strategies and energetics of tail autotomy in lizards. Ecology 1977, 58, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rodrigues, M. A new species of lizard, genus Micrablepharus (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae), from Brazil. Herpetologica 1996, 52, 535–541. [Google Scholar]
  25. Colli, G.R.; Bastos, R.P.; Araujo, A.F.B. The character and dynamics of the Cerrado herpetofauna. In The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Savannah; Oliveira, P.S., Marquis, R.J., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 223–241. [Google Scholar]
  26. Santos, M.G.; Nogueira, C.; Giugliano, L.G.; Colli, G.R. Landscape evolution and phylogeography of Micrablepharus atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae), an endemic lizard of the Brazilian Cerrado. J. Biogeogr. 2014, 41, 1506–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. de Moura, M.R.; Dayrell, J.S.; de Avelar São-Pedro, V. Reptilia, Gymnophthalmidae, Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lutken, 1861): Distribution extension, new state record and geographic distribution map. Check List 2010, 6, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Gainsbury, A.M.; Colli, G.R. Lizard assemblages from natural Cerrado enclaves in southwestern Amazonia: The role of stochastic extinctions and isolation. Biotropica 2003, 35, 503–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vieira, G.H.C.; Mesquita, D.O.; Péres, A.K., Jr.; Kitayama, K.; Colli, G.R. Lacertilia: Micrablepharus atticolus (NCN). Natural history. Herpetol. Rev. 2000, 31, 241–242. [Google Scholar]
  30. Vitt, L.J. An introduction to the ecology of Cerrado lizards. J. Herpetol. 1991, 25, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vitt, L.J.; Caldwell, J.P. Ecological observations on Cerrado lizards in Rondônia, Brazil. J. Herpetol. 1993, 27, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. de Sousa, H.C.; Soares, A.H.S.B.; Costa, B.M.; Pantoja, D.L.; Caetano, G.H.; de Queiroz, T.A.; Colli, G.R. Fire regimes and the demography of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae) in a biodiversity hotspot. S. Am. J. Herpetol. 2015, 10, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dal Vechio, F.; Recoder, R.; Zaher, H.; Rodrigues, M.T. Natural history of Micrablepharus maximiliani (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) in a Cerrado region of northeastern Brazil. Zoologia 2014, 31, 114–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Roscito, J.G.; Nunes, P.M.S.; Rodrigues, M.T. Digit evolution in gymnophthalmid lizards. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2014, 58, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Grizante, M.B.; Brandt, R.; Kohlsdorf, T. Evolution of body elongation in gymnophthalmid lizards: Relationships with climate. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Renous, S.; Hofling, E.; Gasc, J.P. Respective role of the axial and appendicular systems in relation to the transition to limblessness. Acta Biotheor. 1998, 46, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Renous, S.; Hofling, E.; Gasc, J.P. On the rhythmical coupling of the axial and appendicular systems in small terrestrial lizards (Sauria: Gymnophthalmidae). Zool.-Anal. Complex Syst. 1999, 102, 31–49. [Google Scholar]
  38. Höfling, E.; Renous, S. High frequency of pauses during intermittent locomotion of small South American gymnophthalmid lizards (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae). Phyllomedusa 2004, 3, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Sousa, H.C.; Costa, B.M.; Morais, C.J.S.; Pantoja, D.L.; de Queiroz, T.A.; Vieira, C.R.; Colli, G.R. Blue tales of a blue-tailed lizard: Ecological correlates of tail autotomy in Micrablepharus atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae) in a Neotropical savannah. J. Zool. 2016, 299, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gillis, G.; Higham, T.E. Consequences of lost endings: Caudal autotomy as a lens for focusing attention on tail function during locomotion. J. Exp. Biol. 2016, 219, 2416–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Christian, K.A.; Tracy, C.R. The effect of the thermal environment on the ability of hatchling Galapagos land iguanas to avoid predation during dispersal. Oecologia 1981, 49, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jayne, B.C.; Bennett, A.F. Selection on locomotor performance capacity in a natural population of garter snakes. Evolution 1990, 44, 1204–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Greenwald, O.E. Thermal dependence of striking and prey capture by gopher snakes. Copeia 1974, 1974, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Webb, W.P. Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. Am. Zool. 1984, 24, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Garland, T.; Hankins, E.; Huey, R.B. Locomotor capacity and social dominance in male lizards. Funct. Ecol. 1990, 4, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chapple, D.G.; Swain, R. Effect of caudal autotomy on locomotor performance in a viviparous skink, Niveoscincus metallicus. Funct. Ecol. 2002, 16, 817–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dayananda, B.; Ibarguengoytia, N.; Whiting, M.J.; Webb, J.K. Effects of pregnancy on body temperature and locomotor performance of velvet geckos. J. Therm. Biol. 2017, 65, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cloyed, C.S.; Grady, J.M.; Savage, V.M.; Uyeda, J.C.; Dell, A.I. The allometry of locomotion. Ecology 2021, 102, e03369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pironon, S.; Papuga, G.; Villellas, J.; Angert, A.L.; Garcia, M.B.; Thompson, J.D. Geographic variation in genetic and demographic performance: New insights from an old biogeographical paradigm. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2017, 92, 1877–1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lin, Z.H.; Ji, X. Partial tail loss has no severe effects on energy stores and locomotor performance in a lacertid lizard, Takydromus septentrionalis. J. Comp. Physiol. B-Biochem. Syst. Environ. Physiol. 2005, 175, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; De Moraes Goncalves, J.L.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 2013, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Angilletta, M.J., Jr. Thermal Adaptation: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wood, S.N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd ed.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; p. 476. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wood, S.N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B-Stat. Methodol. 2011, 73, 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wood, S.N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; Volume 16, p. 391. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bartón, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference, R package version 1.40.4; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  58. Leeb, H.; Potscher, B.M. Model selection and inference: Facts and fiction. Econom. Theory 2005, 21, 21–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Hjort, N.L.; Claeskens, G. Frequentist model average estimators. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2003, 98, 879–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. 496. [Google Scholar]
  61. Liang, H.; Zou, G.H.; Wan, A.T.K.; Zhang, X.Y. Optimal weight choice for frequentist model average estimators. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2011, 106, 1053–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Galipaud, M.; Gillingham, M.A.F.; David, M.; Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.-X. Ecologists overestimate the importance of predictor variables in model averaging: A plea for cautious interpretations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5, 983–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Galipaud, M.; Gillingham, M.A.F.; Dechaume-Moncharmont, F.-X. A farewell to the sum of Akaike weights: The benefits of alternative metrics for variable importance estimations in model selection. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2017, 8, 1668–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Lukacs, P.M.; Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model selection bias and Freedman’s paradox. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 2010, 62, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bauwens, D.; Garland, T.; Castilla, A.M.; Vandamme, R. Evolution of sprint speed in lacertid lizards: Morphological, physiological, and behavioral covariation. Evolution 1995, 49, 848–863. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sinclair, B.J.; Marshall, K.E.; Sewell, M.A.; Levesque, D.L.; Willett, C.S.; Slotsbo, S.; Dong, Y.W.; Harley, C.D.G.; Marshall, D.J.; Helmuth, B.S.; et al. Can we predict ectotherm responses to climate change using thermal performance curves and body temperatures? Ecol. Lett. 2016, 19, 1372–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Angilletta, M.J., Jr.; Bennett, A.F.; Guderley, H.; Navas, C.A.; Seebacher, F.; Wilson, R.S. Coadaptation: A unifying principle in evolutionary thermal biology. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2006, 79, 282–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Higham, T.E.; Russell, A.P.; Zani, P.A. Integrative biology of tail autotomy in lizards. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2013, 86, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Huey, R.B.; Stevenson, R.D. Integrating thermal physiology and ecology of ectotherms: A discussion of approaches. Am. Zool. 1979, 19, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Huey, R.B. Temperature, physiology, and the ecology of reptiles. In Biology of the Reptilia; Gans, C., Pough, F.H., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1982; Volume 12, pp. 25–91. [Google Scholar]
  71. Angilletta, M.J., Jr.; Niewiarowski, P.H.; Navas, C.A. The evolution of thermal physiology in ectotherms. J. Therm. Biol. 2002, 27, 249–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Strangas, M.L.; Navas, C.A.; Rodrigues, M.T.; Carnaval, A.C. Thermophysiology, microclimates, and species distributions of lizards in the mountains of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ecography 2019, 42, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Colli, G.R.; Hoogmoed, M.S.; Cannatella, D.C.; Cassimiro, J.; Gomes, J.O.; Ghellere, J.M.; Nunes, P.M.S.; Pellegrino, K.C.M.; Salerno, P.; De Souza, S.M.; et al. Description and phylogenetic relationships of a new genus and two new species of lizards from Brazilian Amazonia, with nomenclatural comments on the taxonomy of Gymnophthalmidae (Reptilia: Squamata). Zootaxa 2015, 4000, 401–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Clusella-Trullas, S.; Chown, S.L. Lizard thermal trait variation at multiple scales: A review. J. Comp. Physiol. B-Biochem. Syst. Environ. Physiol. 2014, 184, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Huey, R.B.; Kingsolver, J.G. Evolution of thermal sensitivity of ectotherm performance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1989, 4, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Van Damme, R.; Vanhooydonck, B. Origins of interspecific variation in lizard sprint capacity. Funct. Ecol. 2001, 15, 186–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pontes-da-Silva, E.; Magnusson, W.E.; Sinervo, B.; Caetano, G.H.; Miles, D.B.; Colli, G.R.; Diele-Viegas, L.M.; Fenker, J.; Santos, J.C.; Werneck, F.P. Extinction risks forced by climatic change and intraspecific variation in the thermal physiology of a tropical lizard. J. Therm. Biol. 2018, 73, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mendez-Galeano, M.A.; Paternina-Cruz, R.F.; Calderon-Espinosa, M.L. The highest kingdom of Anolis: Thermal biology of the Andean lizard Anolis heterodermus (Squamata: Dactyloidae) over an elevational gradient in the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia. J. Therm. Biol. 2020, 89, 102498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Marques, E.Q.; Marimon-Junior, B.H.; Marimon, B.S.; Matricardi, E.A.T.; Mews, H.A.; Colli, G.R. Redefining the Cerrado-Amazonia transition: Implications for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 1501–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gaston, K.J. Geographic range limits: Achieving synthesis. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2009, 276, 1395–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Garner, T.W.J.; Pearman, P.B.; Angelone, S. Genetic diversity across a vertebrate species’ range: A test of the central-peripheral hypothesis. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13, 1047–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pironon, S.; Villellas, J.; Morris, W.F.; Doak, D.F.; Garcia, M.B. Do geographic, climatic or historical ranges differentiate the performance of central versus peripheral populations? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2015, 24, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Valladares, F.; Matesanz, S.; Guilhaumon, F.; Araujo, M.B.; Balaguer, L.; Benito-Garzon, M.; Cornwell, W.; Gianoli, E.; van Kleunen, M.; Naya, D.E.; et al. The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 1351–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Shine, R. Effects of pregnancy on locomotor performance: An experimental study on lizards. Oecologia 2003, 136, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Olsson, M.; Shine, R.; Bak-Olsson, E. Locomotor impairment of gravid lizards: Is the burden physical or physiological? J. Evol. Biol. 2000, 13, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bauwens, D.; Thoen, C. Escape tactics and vulnerability to predation associated with reproduction in the lizard Lacerta vivipara. J. Anim. Ecol. 1981, 50, 733–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Itonaga, K.; Jones, S.M.; Wapstra, E. Do gravid females become selfish? Female allocation of energy during gestation. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2012, 85, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Sinervo, B.; Hedges, R.; Adolph, S.C. Decreased sprint speed as a cost of reproduction in the lizard Sceloporus Occidentalis: Variation among populations. J. Exp. Biol. 1991, 155, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Seigel, R.A.; Huggins, M.M.; Ford, N.B. Reduction in locomotor ability as a cost of reproduction in gravid snakes. Oecologia 1987, 73, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shine, R. “Costs” of reproduction in reptiles. Oecologia 1980, 46, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Van Damme, R.; Bauwens, D.; Verheyen, R.F. Effect of relative clutch mass on sprint speed in the lizard Lacerta vivipara. J. Herpetol. 1989, 23, 459–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cooper, W.E., Jr.; Wilson, D.S.; Smith, G.R. Sex, reproductive status, and cost of tail autotomy via decreased running speed in lizards. Ethology 2009, 115, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Shine, R. Locomotor speeds of gravid lizards: Placing ‘costs of reproduction’ within an ecological context. Funct. Ecol. 2003, 17, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Clemente, C.J.; Withers, P.C.; Thompson, G. Optimal body size with respect to maximal speed for the yellow-spotted monitor lizard (Varanus panoptes; Varanidae). Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 2012, 85, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jones, J.H.; Lindstedt, S.L. Limits to maximal performance. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 1993, 55, 547–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Heglund, N.C.; Taylor, C.R.; McMahon, T.A. Scaling stride frequency and gait to animal size: Mice to horses. Science 1974, 186, 1112–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Locomotion: Energy cost of swimming, flying, and running. Science 1972, 177, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zamora-Camacho, F.J.; Reguera, S.; Moreno-Rueda, G. Does tail autotomy affect thermoregulation in an accurately thermoregulating lizard? Lessons from a 2200-m elevational gradient. J. Zool. 2015, 297, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Downes, S.J.; Shine, R. Why does tail loss increase a lizard’s later vulnerability to snake predators? Ecology 2001, 82, 1293–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jagnandan, K.; Russell, A.P.; Higham, T.E. Tail autotomy and subsequent regeneration alter the mechanics of locomotion in lizards. J. Exp. Biol. 2014, 217, 3891–3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Hamley, T. Functions of the tail in bipedal locomotion of lizards dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Mem. Qld. Mus. 1990, 28, 153–158. [Google Scholar]
  102. Höfling, E.; Renous, S.; Curcio, F.F.; Eterovic, A.; de Souza Santos Filho, P. Effects of surface roughness on the locomotion of a long-tailed lizard, Colobodactylus taunayi Amaral, 1933 (Gymnophthalmidae: Heterodactylini). Int. J. Zool. 2012, 2012, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Vitt, L.J.; Caldwell, J.P. Herpetology. An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 4th ed.; Elsevier, Inc.: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  104. Gans, C. Tetrapod limblessness: Evolution and functional corollaries. Am. Zool. 1975, 15, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. da Silva, F.O.; Fabre, A.C.; Savriama, Y.; Ollonen, J.; Mahlow, K.; Herrel, A.; Muller, J.; Di-Poi, N. The ecological origins of snakes as revealed by skull evolution. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. McElroy, E.J. The effect of tail autotomy on locomotor performance in the long tailed grass lizard, Takydromus sexlineatus. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2011, 51, E89. [Google Scholar]
  107. Wiens, J.J.; Slingluff, J.L. How lizards turn into snakes: A phylogenetic analysis of body-form evolution in anguid lizards. Evolution 2001, 55, 2303–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wiens, J.J.; Brandley, M.C.; Reeder, T.W. Why does a trait evolve multiple times within a clade? Repeated evolution of snakelike body form in squamate reptiles. Evolution 2006, 60, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 13 00562 g001 550
Figure 1. Locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus as a function of (A) body temperature, (B) body temperature and female reproductive condition (gravid females vs. non-gravid females and males), and (C) body temperature and geography. Points represent partial residuals of a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM), while lines and bands represent the predictions and confidence limits, respectively.
Figure 1. Locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus as a function of (A) body temperature, (B) body temperature and female reproductive condition (gravid females vs. non-gravid females and males), and (C) body temperature and geography. Points represent partial residuals of a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM), while lines and bands represent the predictions and confidence limits, respectively.
Diversity 13 00562 g001
Diversity 13 00562 g002 550
Figure 2. Locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus as a function of (A) body temperature and body mass, and (B) body temperature and length of the regenerated portion of the tail. The surface represents the predictions of a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM).
Figure 2. Locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus as a function of (A) body temperature and body mass, and (B) body temperature and length of the regenerated portion of the tail. The surface represents the predictions of a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM).
Diversity 13 00562 g002
Table
Table 1. Summary statistics of ecophysiological parameters of Micrablepharus atticolus from Brasília and Nova Xavantina, Brazil. Values represent the mean ± one standard deviation.
Table 1. Summary statistics of ecophysiological parameters of Micrablepharus atticolus from Brasília and Nova Xavantina, Brazil. Values represent the mean ± one standard deviation.
ParameterBrasíliaNova XavantinaTotal
Sample size3964103
Mass (g)1.49 ± 0.350.82 ± 0.191.06 ± 0.41
Snout-vent length (mm)38.22 ± 3.0634.98 ± 2.7636.12 ± 3.26
Tail length (mm)48.62 ± 13.7446.37 ± 17.6447.17 ± 16.39
Relative tail length1.27 ± 0.341.32 ± 0.501.31 ± 0.45
Length of regenerated portion of tail (mm)6.38 ± 10.309.99 ± 11.958.71 ± 11.51
Relative length of regenerated portion of tail0.16 ± 0.260.28 ± 0.340.24 ± 0.32
Body temperature during runs (°C)27.94 ± 6.7227.53 ± 5.4327.67 ± 5.88
Critical thermal minimum (°C)13.90 ± 1.7815.20 ± 3.2914.70 ± 2.08
Critical thermal maximum (°C)44.41 ± 1.8440.00 ± 3.0941.69 ± 3.43
Sprint speed (maximum)0.07 ± 0.020.10 ± 0.040.09 ± 0.04
Table
Table 2. Full generalized additive mixed-effects model (GAMM) relating predictors to locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus. AU: caudal autotomy (yes/no), CCr: total tail length, RCr: length of the regenerated portion of the tail, SVL: snout-vent length, NX: Nova Xavantina, edf: expected degrees-of-freedom.
Table 2. Full generalized additive mixed-effects model (GAMM) relating predictors to locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus. AU: caudal autotomy (yes/no), CCr: total tail length, RCr: length of the regenerated portion of the tail, SVL: snout-vent length, NX: Nova Xavantina, edf: expected degrees-of-freedom.
Parametric Terms
TermEstimateStd. Errortp
(Intercept)0.04110.00656.3080<0.0001
LocalNX0.02200.00693.19200.0015
SexMale0.00150.00450.32300.7467
AUYes0.00000.0070−0.00400.9970
Pregnancy−0.02030.0068−2.97000.0031
Smooth Terms
TermedfRef. dfFp
s(Temperature)7.9767.97695.569<0.00001
s(CCr)1.0001.0000.0360.84979
s(RCr)1.0001.0003.0370.08203
s(SVL)1.0001.0000.3650.54589
s(Mass)3.1193.1194.9830.00259
Table
Table 3. Model selection and averaging of generalized additive mixed-effects models (GAMMs) relating predictors to locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus. Models depicted are those with ΔAICc < 4. AU: caudal autotomy (yes/no), RT: length of regenerated portion of tail, AICc: Akaike information criterion corrected for small samples, ΔAICc: difference between given and best model, wAICc: Akaike weight.
Table 3. Model selection and averaging of generalized additive mixed-effects models (GAMMs) relating predictors to locomotor performance (sprint speed) of the lizard Micrablepharus atticolus. Models depicted are those with ΔAICc < 4. AU: caudal autotomy (yes/no), RT: length of regenerated portion of tail, AICc: Akaike information criterion corrected for small samples, ΔAICc: difference between given and best model, wAICc: Akaike weight.
Model Selection
ModeldflogLikAICcΔAICcwAICc
Pregnancy + Site + s(Mass) + s(RCr) + s(Temperature)11934.81−1847.060.000.25
AU + Pregnancy + Site + s(Mass) + s(RCr) + s(Temperature)12934.84−1845.012.050.09
Pregnancy + Site + s(Mass) + s(RCr) + s(Temperature)+ Sex12934.82−1844.972.100.09
Pregnancy + Site + s(Mass) + s(Temperature)9931.35−1844.322.750.06
AU + Pregnancy + Site + s(Mass) + s(Temperature)10932.22−1843.963.100.05
Pregnancy + Site + s(Mass) + s(RCr) + s(SVL) + s(Temperature)13934.93−1843.073.990.03
Model Averaging
Importances(Temperature)Pregnancys(Mass)Sites(RCr)AUSexs(CCr)s(SVL)
Sum of model weights1.000.930.900.890.730.330.270.150.14
Number of containing models255253253254254255255255254
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, N.A.; Caetano, G.H.d.O.; Campelo, P.H.; Cavalcante, V.H.G.L.; Godinho, L.B.; Miles, D.B.; Paulino, H.M.; da Silva, J.M.A.; de Souza, B.A.; da Silva, H.B.F.; et al. Effects of Caudal Autotomy on the Locomotor Performance of Micrablepharus Atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae). Diversity 2021, 13, 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110562

AMA Style

Silva NA, Caetano GHdO, Campelo PH, Cavalcante VHGL, Godinho LB, Miles DB, Paulino HM, da Silva JMA, de Souza BA, da Silva HBF, et al. Effects of Caudal Autotomy on the Locomotor Performance of Micrablepharus Atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae). Diversity. 2021; 13(11):562. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110562

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Naiane Arantes, Gabriel Henrique de Oliveira Caetano, Pedro Henrique Campelo, Vitor Hugo Gomes Lacerda Cavalcante, Leandro Braga Godinho, Donald Bailey Miles, Henrique Monteiro Paulino, Júlio Miguel Alvarenga da Silva, Bruno Araújo de Souza, Hosmano Batista Ferreira da Silva, and et al. 2021. "Effects of Caudal Autotomy on the Locomotor Performance of Micrablepharus Atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae)" Diversity 13, no. 11: 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110562

APA Style

Silva, N. A., Caetano, G. H. d. O., Campelo, P. H., Cavalcante, V. H. G. L., Godinho, L. B., Miles, D. B., Paulino, H. M., da Silva, J. M. A., de Souza, B. A., da Silva, H. B. F., & Colli, G. R. (2021). Effects of Caudal Autotomy on the Locomotor Performance of Micrablepharus Atticolus (Squamata, Gymnophthalmidae). Diversity, 13(11), 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110562

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop