Continuous expansion of the geographic range linked to realized niche expansion in the invasive Mourning gecko Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836)

Abstract

Lepidodactylus lugubris is a parthenogenetic gecko which has been increasingly expanding its range during the last century. This invasive species has been reported from multiple tropical and subtropical countries in five continents, most of which were colonized in recent times. In order to understand how the realized niche of the species was affected by this dramatic geographic range expansion, we reconstructed the history of the geographic range expansion. We built models of the realized niche of the species at different points in time during the invasion process. This was achieved through the implementation of modern hypervolume construction methods, based on the Hutchinson's niche concept. The models were then compared to detect possible realized climatic niche expansion over time. Furthermore, we investigated possible pathways used by the species to spread. A progressive expansion of the realized niche was identified. As the species spread into new areas, we observed a tendency to colonize regions with warmer temperatures and higher precipitation rates. Finally, we found evidence for cargo shipping being the major pathway through which the species expands its range. Further studies on this topic should aim to investigate the role of biological interactions, and how they shape the distribution of L. lugubris on a global scale. A deeper understanding of this kind of processes will help us tackle the issue of invasive species, which has become a major challenge in conservation biology.

In situ adaptation and ecological release facilitate the occupied niche expansion of a non‐native Madagascan day gecko in Florida

“…grandis (e.g., Warner et al., 2021). However, the high permutation importance of Temperature Seasonality—along with the lack of overlap in values for Temperature Seasonality between the Madagascar and Florida ranges (Figure 7a)—suggests that exposure to extended periods of suboptimal temperatures probably also plays an important limiting role (e.g., Battles & Kolbe, 2019; Nania et al., 2020).…”

“…Points were checked against the species' known native distribution in northern Madagascar (Raxworthy et al, 2007) to confirm their accuracy. Global Biodiversity Information Center (GBIF) data are often used in the construction of SDMs (e.g., Mothes et al, 2019;Nania et al, 2020;Suzuki-Ohno et al, 2017;Weterings & Vetter, 2018), but were not included in this list of presences as they include iNaturalist "Research Grade" observations (Boone & Basille, 2019) of P. grandis, many of which are actually misidentifications of P. kochi or P. madagascariensis Gray 1831 (pers. obs.).…”

“…Correlative "climate-matching" SDMs use the bioclimatic characteristics of a taxon's observed range to identify regions of potential bioclimatic suitability outside of its known range (Engeman et al, 2011;Hattab et al, 2017;Uden et al, 2015) and are considered a useful tool for the management of non-native herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) (Bomford et al, 2009;Fujisaki et al, 2009;van Wilgen et al, 2009). Maxent (Phillips et al, 2006) is one of the most popular methods for modeling species distributions (Merow et al, 2013) and is widely used in the study of non-native reptiles (Angetter et al, 2011;Buckland et al, 2014;Cohen, 2017;Dowell et al, 2016;Falcón et al, 2012;Jarnevich et al, 2018;Mothes et al, 2019;Mutascio et al, 2018;Nania et al, 2020;Pyron et al, 2008;Rödder et al, 2008;Weterings & Vetter, 2018). Maxent has been shown to generally outperform equivalent methods (Elith et al, 2006;Gogol-Prokurat, 2011), returning highly accurate predictions even with small sets of presence-only data (Gogol-Prokurat, 2011;Merow et al, 2013;Pearson et al, 2007).…”

“…Maxent (Phillips et al., 2006) is one of the most popular methods for modeling species distributions (Merow et al., 2013) and is widely used in the study of non‐native reptiles (Angetter et al., 2011; Buckland et al., 2014; Cohen, 2017; Dowell et al., 2016; Falcón et al., 2012; Jarnevich et al., 2018; Mothes et al., 2019; Mutascio et al., 2018; Nania et al., 2020; Pyron et al., 2008; Rödder et al., 2008; Weterings & Vetter, 2018). Maxent has been shown to generally outperform equivalent methods (Elith et al., 2006; Gogol‐Prokurat, 2011), returning highly accurate predictions even with small sets of presence‐only data (Gogol‐Prokurat, 2011; Merow et al., 2013; Pearson et al., 2007).…”

Who’s your daddy? On the identity and distribution of the paternal hybrid ancestor of the parthenogenetic gecko Lepidodactylus lugubris (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae)

“…The gecko species Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836) is comprised of a set of clonal parthenogenetic lineages that has colonized at least scores, and likely hundreds, of islands of the Pacific Basin and has more recently been introduced across the global tropics (Kraus 2009;Nania et al 2020). Parthenogenesis in L. lugubris was originally demonstrated by Cuellar and Kluge (1972), but it was not until 20 years later that the origin of parthenogenesis was attributed to hybridization between moderately divergent bisexual Lepidodactylus species (Volobouev et al 1993;Radtkey et al 1995; also see Pasteur et al 1987).…”