The relationship between habitat use and body shape in geckos

Abstract

Geckos are a highly diverse group of lizards, with more than 1,700 species that exhibit a wide range of behaviors, ecologies, and sizes. However, no study has examined links between habitat use and body shape in pad-bearing geckos. We set out to answer a basic question using a data set of padbearing geckos (112 species, 103 pad-bearing, 9 padless, 42 genera): Do geckos that occur in different habitats also differ in body shape? Overall, we found that body shape was surprisingly similar among our sample of pad-bearing species, with the exception of the genus Uroplatus, which was clearly distinct from other geckos due to its depressed body and long limbs. However, the padless geckos differed in body shape from the pad-bearing geckos by having longer arms and legs and less rotund bodies. We found that about half of the pad-bearing species primarily inhabit trees, with the other half, divided approximately equally among rocks, the ground, and mixed habitats. We found no significant links between habitat use and body shape, nor any propensity for larger species to occupy different habitats than smaller species. Padless species tend to inhabit rock and ground substrates. Our results indicate that pad-bearing geckos have a relatively uniform body form, which contrasts with to their diversity in color, size, and behavior. Indeed, our data show that the general gecko body shape is suitable for a wide range of habitats, ranging from arboreal to terrestrial. This pattern is a departure from other ecomorphological studies and suggests that geckos may not easily fit into the mold of adaptive radiation, as suggested by prior studies. K E Y W O R D S morphology, toepads, Gekkota, phylogenetic comparative method, principal components

Environmental correlates of morphological diversity in Australian geckos

“…Indeed, Kulyomina et al. (2019) found that pad‐less gecko species have longer limbs than pad‐bearing ones (a result also borne out by our own data, especially for large‐bodied species; results not shown) – and found little shape differences between arboreal, saxicolous and terrestrial pad‐bearing geckos. Zaaf and Van Damme (2001) examined the limb proportions of 29 gecko species in an attempt to identify differences between climbing and ground‐dwelling species.…”

“…In contrast, climbing species occupying arboreal and saxicolous microhabitats would require greater stability and encounter fewer obstacles, allowing for faster rates of movement, and thus, evolve longer limbs (Foster et al., 2018; Goodman et al., 2008; Tan et al., 2020, but see Hagey et al., 2017 who showed that arboreal species had shorter femora, and Kaliontzopoulou et al, 2010 who showed terrestrial species had longer femora than scansorial species). Whilst these patterns have been observed within skinks (Foster et al., 2018; Goodman et al., 2008; Melville & Swain, 2000), attempts to link limb morphology and microhabitat use in non‐anoline lizards have often failed (e.g., Foster et al., 2018; Kulyomina et al., 2019; Olberding et al., 2016). The ecological and morphological similarities between many lizard groups, however, make further investigation into microhabitat–morphology relationships in lizard species potentially illuminating.…”

Genetically diverse yet morphologically conserved: Hidden diversity revealed among Bornean geckos (Gekkonidae:Cyrtodactylus)

“…However, we hypothesize that a more parsimonious scenario is that the ancestor of the Bornean and Philippine species, excluding the clade comprising C. consobrinus , C. malayanus , and C. limajalur , was a small‐bodied forest dweller with blotched color pattern similar to C. pubisulcus . This evolutionary pattern of general‐bodied geckos, often with spotted or blotched coloration, giving rise to diverse clades has occurred across the greater gecko phylogeny, including the earliest gecko lineage (Allen et al, 2019; Kulyomina et al, 2019).…”

Quantifying surface topography of biological systems from 3D scans

“…However, the practice of using basic habitat categorizations from the literature is well‐accepted (e.g. Hsiang et al., 2015; Kulyomina et al., 2019), and these habitat categorizations can be considered to be estimates of primary habitat use. We accounted for the effect of body length (as a covariate) in these analyses in cases where body length was significantly related to the skin surface variable of interest.…”