Vol. 31 Núm. 1 (2015)
Artículos originales

Diet and reproductive aspects of the exotic gecko gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834) (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in the urban area of Chapala, Jalisco, Mexico

xml
  • José Luis Barragán-Ramírez,
  • Omar Eduardo Reyes-Luis,
  • José de Jesús Ascencio-Arrayga,
  • José Luis Navarrete-Heredia,
  • Miguel Vásquez-Bolaños
José Luis Barragán-Ramírez
Universidad de Guadalajara
Omar Eduardo Reyes-Luis
Universidad de Guadalajara
José de Jesús Ascencio-Arrayga
Universidad de Guadalajara
José Luis Navarrete-Heredia
Universidad de Guadalajara
Miguel Vásquez-Bolaños
Universidad de Guadalajara
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21829/azm.2015.311506

Publicado 10-04-2015

Palabras clave

  • feeding ecology,
  • exotic species,
  • oviposition,
  • clutch size,
  • egg size,
  • body size,
  • nest site
    • ...Más
    Menos

Cómo citar

Barragán-Ramírez, J. L., Reyes-Luis, O. E., Ascencio-Arrayga, J. de J., Navarrete-Heredia, J. L., & Vásquez-Bolaños, M. (2015). Diet and reproductive aspects of the exotic gecko gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834) (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in the urban area of Chapala, Jalisco, Mexico. ACTA ZOOLÓGICA MEXICANA (N.S.), 31(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.21829/azm.2015.311506

Derechos de autor 2015 ACTA ZOOLÓGICA MEXICANA (N.S.)

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

Resumen

We studied the diet and described some reproductive
aspects (body size, clutch size, size and egg volume, and nesting site) of the exotic gecko Gehyra mutilata in the urban area from Chapala, Jalisco, Mexico, during a period of nine months (April-December, 2013). A total of 113 adult individuals were captured, where 101 revealed to have stomach contents. We found a total of 1,563 food items, which were identified and grouped into 13 prey categories: Araneae, Blattodea, Coleoptera, Dermaptera, Diptera, Gastropoda, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera: Formicidae and Non-Formicidae, Isopoda, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Squamata (Gekkonidae) and Trichoptera. Diptera (Nematocera) was the most important food category in abundance (91.6%), relative frequency (34.2%), volume (68.8%), and relative importance (94.8%). Other uncountable food items as plant material and eggshell remains were present in the diet. The number of prey per stomach were between 1 to 140, with a mean of 15.5 ± 25.56, the prey volume mean was 0.29 ± 0.76 ml, with a range of <0.01 – 2.90 ml. Males had fewer
prey items in their stomachs than females, but no significant differences were found between sexes. Diet diversity (1D) between males and females was evaluated, which was similar with almost two effective food categories for both sexes. The trophic niche overlap between sexes showed a high numeric and volumetric similarity in their diet. Snout-vent length did not significantly differ between males and adult females. The mean clutch size was 2 eggs, even though the nesting site can be composed of larger egg clusters. The nesting sites consisted on holes, crevices and inside electric installations on building walls. The mean egg length was 10.47 ± 0.541, with a mean width of 8.40 ± 0.256, while the mean volume was 387.92 ± 43.297 mm3. The present study suggests that the opportunist habits of G. mutilata are a determinant factor on its diet composition within the urban area of Chapala. 

xml

Citas

  1. Álvarez del Toro, M. 1983. Los reptiles de Chiapas. Third edition. Instituto de Historia Natural, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, 248 pp.
  2. Alvarez-Romero, J. G., Medellín, R. A., Oliveras de Ita, A., Gómez de Silva, H. & Sánchez, O. 2008. Animales exóticos en México: una amenaza para la biodiversidad. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales,México, D.F., 518 pp.
  3. Bock, B. C. 1996. Interclutch interval and egg aggregations in the tropical house gecko, Hemidactylus mabouia. Herpetological Review, 27: 181-183.
  4. Bonfiglio, F., Balestrin, R. L. & Cappellari, L. H. 2006. Diet of Hemidactylus mabouia (Sauria, Gekkonidae) in urban area of
  5. southern Brazil. Biociências, 14: 107-111.
  6. Breithaupt, H. 2003. Aliens on the shores. EMBO reports, 4: 547-
  7. Case, T. J. & Schwaner, T. D. 1993. Island/mainland body size differences in Australian varanid lizards. Oecologia, 94: 102-109.
  8. Chou, L. M. 1979. Eggs and incubation period of three gekkonid lizards. Copeia, 1979: 552-554.
  9. Church, G. 1962. The reproductive cycles of the Javanese house
  10. geckos, Cosymbotus platyurus, Hemidactylus frenatus, and Peropus
  11. mutilates. Copeia, 1962: 262-269.
  12. Díaz-Pérez, J. A., Dávila-Suárez, J. A., Alvarez-García, D. M. &
  13. Sampedro-Marín, A. C. 2012. Dieta de Hemidactylus frenatus
  14. (Sauria: Gekkonidae) en un área urbana de la región Caribe Colombiana.Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n. s.), 28: 613-616.
  15. Dugès, A. 1883. Una nueva especie de salamanquesa (Hemidactylus
  16. navarri, A. Dugès). La Naturaleza, 6: 309–312.
  17. Fisher, R. N. 1997. Dispersal and evolution of the Pacific Basin gekkonid lizards Gehyra oceanica and Gehyra mutilata. Evolution,
  18. : 906–921.
  19. Flores-Villela, O. A., Hernández-García, E. & Nieto-Montes de
  20. Oca, A. 1991. Catálogo de anfibios y reptiles. Serie Catálogos del Museo de Zoología Alfonso L. Herrera, No. 3. Coordinación
  21. de Servicios Editoriales, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, México,
  22. D.F., 222 pp.
  23. Gotelli, N. J. & Entsminger, G. L. 2001. EcoSim: Null models software for ecology. Version 7.0. Acquired Intelligence Inc. & Kesey-Bear.
  24. Grismer, L. L. 2002. Amphibians and reptiles of Baja California.
  25. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 399 pp.
  26. Hardy, L. M. & McDiarmid, R. W. 1969. The amphibians and reptiles of Sinaloa, Mexico. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History, 18: 110-111.
  27. Jessop, T. S., Madsen, T., Sumner, J., Rudiharto, H., Phillips, J.A. & Ciofi, C. 2006. Maximum body size among insular Komodo
  28. dragon populations covaries with large prey density. Oikos, 112:
  29. -429.
  30. Jost, L. 2006. Entropy and diversity. Oikos, 113: 363-375.
  31. Klawinski, P. D., Vaughan, R. K., Saenz, D. & Godwin, W. 1994.
  32. Comparison of dietary overlap between allopatric and sympatric
  33. geckos. Journal of Herpetology, 28: 225-230.
  34. Kusuminda, T. G. T., Athukorala, D. A. A. D. & Karunarathna,
  35. D. M. S. S. 2013. Egg-predation of Hemidactylus frenatus. Taprobanica, 05: 152-153.
  36. Lemos-Espinal, J. A. & Dixon, J. R. 2013. Amphibians and reptiles of San Luis Potosí. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah, 300 pp.
  37. Locey, K. J. & Stone, P. A. 2008. Ontogenetic factors affecting diffusion dispersal in the introduced Mediterranean Gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus. Journal of Herpetology, 42: 593-599.
  38. Magnusson, W. E., Lima, A. P., Alves da Silva, W. & Carmozina
  39. de Araújo, M. 2003. Use of geometric forms to estimate volume
  40. of invertebrates in ecological studies of dietary overlap. Copeia, 2003: 13-19.
  41. McCoid, M. J. 1994. Eggs, hatchling sizes, and oviposition sites of lizards on Guam, Mariana Islands. Herpetological Review, 25: 98-100.
  42. McNeely, J. A., Mooney, H. A., Neville, L. E., Schei, P. & Waage
  43. J. K. 2001. A Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species. IUCN
  44. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, 50 pp.
  45. Moreno, C. E., Barragán, F., Pineda, E. & Pavón, N. P. 2011. Reanalyzing alpha diversity: alternatives to understand and compare information about ecological communities. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 82: 1249-1261.
  46. Park, K. 2004. Assessment and management of invasive alien predators. Ecology and Society, 9: 12.
  47. Pianka, E. R. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4: 53-74.
  48. Pianka, E. R. 1974. Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71: 2141-2145.
  49. Pianka, E. R., Oliphant, M. S. & Iverson, Z. L. 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in California waters. California Department of Fish and Game Bulletin, 152: 1-350.
  50. Ponce-Campos, P. & Huerta-Ortega, S. M. 2001. Geographic distribution: Gehyra mutilata. Herpetological Review, 32: 57.
  51. Quay, W. B. 1974. Notes on the winter reproductive biology of the gecko, Peropus mutilatus, on Kauai, Hawaiian Islands. Copeia, 1974: 254.
  52. Quijada-Mascareñas, A. & Canseco-Márquez, L. 2007. Geographic
  53. distribution: Gehyra mutilata. Herpetological Review, 38: 483.
  54. Reynoso, F. 1990. Geographic distribution: Gehyra mutilata. Herpetological Review, 21: 22.
  55. Rocha, S., Ineich, I. & Harris, D. J. 2009. Cryptic variation and recent bipolar range expansion within the Stumped-Toed Gecko
  56. Gehyra mutilata across Indian and Pacific Ocean islands. Contributions to Zoology, 78: 1-8.
  57. Sabath, M. D. 1981. Gekkonid lizards of Guam, Mariana Islands:
  58. reproduction and habitat preference. Journal of Herpetology, 15:
  59. -75.
  60. Saenz, D. 1996. Dietary overview of Hemidactylus turcicus with possible implications of food partitioning. Journal of Herpetology, 30: 461-466.
  61. Sanchez, M. 2010. The Reunion Day Gecko, Phelsuma borbonica
  62. Mertens, 1942 cannibalism behaviour (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Cahiers scientifiques de l’océan Indien occidental, 1: 1-2.
  63. Schwaner, T. D. 1980. Reproductive biology of lizards on the American Samoan Islands. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, 86: 1-53.
  64. Smith, H. M. & Grant, C. 1958. Noteworthy Herptiles from Jalisco, Mexico. Herpetologica, 14: 18-23.
  65. Smith, H. M. & Taylor, E. H. 1950. An annotated checklist and key to the reptiles of Mexico exclusive of the snakes. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 199: 1-254.

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a

1 2 > >>