A Comparative Study of Facial Grooming after Prey Ingestion in Colubrid Snakes

Abstract

For a comparative study of facial grooming behavior, we selected five species of colubrid snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis, T. butleri, T. melanogaster, Storeria dekayi, and Cyclophiops semicarinatus) based upon their phylogenetic relationships and natural diets. In an initial descriptive study, head‐rubbing behavior reliably followed ingestion of earthworms in all five species. Three forms of head rubbing were identified, including two forms of labial rubbing and one form of rostral area rubbing. The latter occurs during foraging as well as grooming. Two additional controlled experiments were then performed. One experiment assessed the effects of multiple feedings with either normal or immobilized earthworms. The second tested the effects of allowing snakes to contact surface secretions of earthworms and purified mucin without physically contacting the worm. The snakes showed a significantly greater number of head rubs when consuming active earthworms than when consuming immobilized worms, and this increased over the five trials. The snakes also head rubbed more frequently in response to earthworm mucus than to either earthworm surface wash or diluted mucin. The physical properties of earthworm mucus (adhesiveness) thus seem to stimulate head‐rubbing behavior. Differences in head rubbing among the species are discussed in relation to natural diet and phylogenetic relatedness. Furthermore, mouth gaping often occurred with head rubbing and can be distinguished from yawning. Tactile and kinesthetic cues associated with this gaping behavior may aid in regulating the occurrence of head rubbing. Neonate snakes head rubbed in a species‐typical manner.

Diel Cycles in Chemosensory Behaviors of Free‐Ranging Rattlesnakes Lying in Wait for Prey

“…To quantify snake behavior during their long waiting periods in the field, we used portable video surveillance cameras, a technique that has already revealed new insights into rattlesnake foraging behavior (Clark 2005(Clark , 2006a. The two most common behaviors we observed were chemosensory probing, a behavior we describe in detail for the first time, and mouth gaping (Graves & Duvall 1983;Cunningham & Burghardt 1999;Klauber 1972). Mouth gaping, which may range from a slight opening of the mouth to spreading of the jaws to an angle approaching 180 degrees (Graves & Duvall 1983), has been suggested to serve multiple functions in snakes, including realigning the jaw both after a strike and after swallowing their prey (Klauber 1972), warning potential predators of their willingness to strike defensively (Glaudas & Winne 2007), and facilitating vomerolfaction in general (Graves & Duvall 1983;Cooper & Burghardt 1990).…”

Plasticity of foraging behavior in garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) reared on different diets.

“…The W group did not show a significant reduction in prey drops between the two tests, although drops on the last test were less likely (8 drops on the first test vs. 2 drops on the last test, p = .109). The greater incidence of drops by the worm-fed snakes during the first test may have been a reaction to body mucous, because head rubbing frequently followed prey drops (see D. S. Cunningham & Burghardt, in press).…”

Behavioural Responses by Red-backed Salamanders to Conspecific and Heterospecific Cues

“…However, if ecological overlap alone was responsible for heterospeci c alarm cue recognition, then we would have expected P. cinereus to avoid macerated earthworms, an ecologically related, but phylogenetically distant species that shares the same microhabitats and predators (Hamilton, 1951;Carpenter, 1952;Cunningham & Burghardt, 1999). The lack of macerated earthworm avoidance by P. cinereus has two likely explanations.…”