Allometry, sexual size dimorphism, and niche partitioning in the Mediterranean gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus)

Southwestern Naturalist

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 435-439

  Johnson, James B ^a   McBrayer, Lance D ^a,c   Saenz, Daniel ^b  

^a STEPHEN F AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

^c GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GEKKO; GEKKONIDAE; HEMIDACTYLUS TURCICUS; SQUAMATA;

EID: 30844472014     PISSN: 00384909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1894/0038-4909(2005)050[0435:ASSDAN]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. ANDERSON, R. A., AND L. J. VITT. 1990. Sexual selection versus alternative causes of sexual dimorphism in teiid lizards. Oecologia 84:145-157.
2. ARNOLD, S. J. 1983. Morphology, performance and fitness. American Zoology 23:347-361.
3. BOHONAK, A. J. 2002. RMA: software for reduced major axis regression, version 1.14b. http://www.bio.sdsu.edu/pub/andy/RMA.html (Accessed: December 2003).
4. CORDES, I. G., P. LE, F. N. MOUTON, AND J. H. VAN WYK. 1995. Sexual dimorphism in two girdled lizard species, Cordylus niger and Cordylus cordylus. South African Journal of Zoology 30:187-196.
5. COX, R. M., S. L. SKELLY, AND H. B. JOHN-ALDER. 2003. A comparative test of adaptive hypotheses for sexual size dimorphism in lizards. Evolution 57:1653-1669.
6. EMERSON, S. B., AND D. M. BRAMBLE. 1993. Scaling, allometry, and skull design. In: J. Hanken and B. K. Hall, editors. The skull: functional and evolutionary mechanisms, volume 3. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Pages 384-421.
7. FAIRBAIRN, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:659-687.
8. HERREL, A., E. DE GRAUW, AND J. A. LEMOS-ESPINAL. 2001. Head shape and bite performance in xenosaurid lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology 290:101-107.
9. HERREL, A., R. VAN DAMME, AND F. DE VREE. 1996. Sexual dimorphism of head size in Podarcis hispanica atrata: testing the dietary divergence hypothesis by bite force analysis. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 46(3-4):253-262.
10. KARUBIAN, J., AND J. P. SWADDLE. 2000. Selection on females can create 'larger males.' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 268:725-728.
11. LAILVAUX, S. P., A. HERREL, B. VANHOOYDONCK, J. J. MEYERS, AND D. J. IRSCHICK. 2004. Fighting tactics differ in two distinct male phenotypes in a lizard: heavyweight and lightweight bouts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271:2501-2508.
12. LAPPIN, A. K., AND J. F. HUSAK. 2005. Weapon performance, not size, determines mating success and potential reproductive output in the collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris). American Naturalist 166:426-436.
13. PREEST, M. R. 1994. Sexual size dimorphism and feeding energetics in Anolis carolinensis: why do females take smaller prey than males? Journal of Herpetology 28:292-298.
14. ROSE, F. L., AND C. D. BARBOUR. 1968. Ecology and reproductive cycles of the introduced gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus, in the southern United States. American Midland Naturalist 79:159-168.
15. SAENZ, D. 1996. Dietary overview of Hemilactylus turcicus with possible implications of food partitioning. Journal of Herpetology 30:461-466.
16. SAENZ, D., AND R. N. CONNER. 1996. Sexual dimorphism in head size of the Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Texas Journal of Science 48:207-212.
17. SCHOENER, T. W. 1967. The ecological significance of sexual size dimorphism in the lizard Anolis conspersus. Science 155:474-477.
18. SELCER, K. W. 1986. Life history of a successful colonizer: the Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus, in southern Texas. Copeia 1986:956-962.
19. SOKAL, R. R., AND F. J. ROHLF. 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
20. STAMPS, J. A. 1977. The relationship between resource competition, risk and aggression in a tropical territorial lizard. Ecology 57:1317-1320.
21. STEGNEGER, L. 1922. Two geckos new to the fauna of the United States. Copeia 1922:56.
22. SUGG, D. W., L. A FITZGERALD, AND H. L. SNELL. 1995. Growth rate, timing of reproduction, and size dimorphism in the south-western earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus scitulus). Southwestern Naturalist 40:193-202.
23. TRIVERS, R. L. 1976. Sexual selection and resource-accruing abilities in Anolis garmani. Evolution 30:253-269.
24. TROUT, L., AND T. D. SCHWANER. 1994. Allozyme evidence for insularity in exotic populations of the Mediterranean gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus). Journal of Herpetology 28:391-393.
25. VERWAIJEN, D., R. VAN DAMME, AND A. HERREL. 2002. Relationships between head size, bite force, prey handling efficiency and diet in two sympatric lacertid lizards. Functional Ecology 16:842-850.
26. VITT, L. J., AND W. E. COOPER. 1985. The evolution of sexual dimorphism in the skink Eumeces laticeps: an example of sexual selection. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:995-1002.
27. WAINWRIGHT, P. C., AND S. M. REILLY. 1994. Ecological morphology. Integrative organismal biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.