Evolution 2017: Spatial Structuring of Urban Green Anoles

In his Masters thesis conducted in Simon Lailvaux’s lab at the University of New Orleans and presented this week at Evolution 2017, David Weber used a multiyear data set of Anolis carolinensis lizards’ locations and morphology as well as a DNA-based pedigree to investigate the effects of body size and relatedness on the spatial distribution of these lizards. Specifically, he set out to test three hypotheses: first, are males’ home ranges larger than females’ home ranges? Second, are bigger males more likely to be surrounded by smaller males that are related to them? And third, is there any evidence for the inheritance of home ranges from parent to offspring?

Anolis carolinensis dewlapping. Photo by Cowenby available on Wikipedia.

Lizard locations were sampled in an urban New Orleans park twice a year, in the fall and in the spring, from 2010 to 2015. The dataset included over 800 individuals, and what struck me most about these data was that, of these 800+ individuals, fewer than 100 were observed often enough to estimate home range volumes–death and dispersal can rule these lizards’ lives! Male and female home range volumes did not differ significantly (and the trend was in the direction of females moving over larger areas, which concurs with data from Robert Gordon’s 1956 thesis on green anoles, but with little else, I think). Curiously, smaller neighbours of the biggest males were less related to them than were males found farther away, suggesting that male anoles don’t preferentially tolerate their kin over non-kin. And though philopatry (aka site fidelity aka staying the same place) was rare overall, females were a bit more likely to co-occur with their male offspring than males were. In a result that conforms to traditional wisdom, Weber found that the biggest males in the site seemed to avoid each other, potentially spacing themselves as far apart as possible.

Following a kind shout-out to my and Jonathan Losos’ recent paper on Anolis territoriality or the lack thereof, Weber chose to interpret his results as making sense only outside of a territorial framework. Unsurprisingly, I concur with this decision entirely, and am excited to see where Weber goes with this idea in the publications resulting from this mammoth dataset!