DOCSLIB.ORG

High-Trophic-Level Consumers: Trophic Relationships of Reptiles and Amphibians of Coastal and Estuarine Ecosystems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High-Trophic-Level Consumers: Trophic Relationships of Reptiles and Amphibians of Coastal and Estuarine Ecosystems Provided for non-commercial research and educational use. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This chapter was originally published in Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non- commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution's administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution's website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial Davenport J (2011) High-Trophic-Level Consumers: Trophic Relationships of Reptiles and Amphibians of Coastal and Estuarine Ecosystems. In: Wolanski E and McLusky DS (eds.) Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, Vol 6, pp. 227–249. Waltham: Academic Press. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Author's personal copy 6.09 High-Trophic-Level Consumers: Trophic Relationships of Reptiles and Amphibians of Coastal and Estuarine Ecosystems J Davenport, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 6.09.1 Introduction/Paleoecology 227 6.09.2 Amphibia 229 6.09.3 Reptiles 230 6.09.3.1 Lizards 230 6.09.3.2 Snakes 233 6.09.3.2.1 Sea snakes 233 6.09.3.2.2 Other snakes 236 6.09.3.3 Crocodilians 236 6.09.3.4 Turtles 237 6.09.3.4.1 Sea turtles 237 6.09.3.4.2 Other turtles 244 6.09.4 General Conclusions 246 References 246 Abstract This chapter briefly considers the trophic relationships of Mesozoic coastal reptiles (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, pterosaurs, and placodonts). The few amphibian species that exploit coastal/estuarine food resources are described. Coastal lizards are dealt with in detail, while there is a large section devoted to the trophic specialization and niche separation of sea snakes. The trophic biology of estuarine crocodilians is reviewed. The rest of the chapter is devoted to sea turtles plus a few other chelonian species that exploit estuaries and coastal waters. The consequences of anthropogenic depletion of reptile populations form a major theme, as do inter-ecosystem energetic subsidies. 6.09.1 Introduction/Paleoecology artifact of the bias created by the presence of indigestible belemnite hooklets in the stomachs; cf. squid diets of ele­ Amphibian ancestors were basal tetrapods, derived from fresh­ phant seals and sperm whales), coastal forms appear to have water fish, dating to the Devonian (~365 million years ago had a broader diet, some having jaws suitable for crushing (MYA)). Modern amphibians (mainly frogs, toads, newts, and shellfish and others apparently taking fish. Recently, evidence salamanders) are mostly tied to freshwater for reproduction of a truly catholic diet in a widespread coastal ichthyosaur was and there is no fossil evidence of ancestral forms from marine found in the fossilized stomach contents of a specimen of the sediments, indicating an absence of an amphibian role in Cretaceous Platypterigius, which had been eating fish, hatchl­ Devonian coastal or estuarine ecosystems. ing sea turtles, and a bird (Kear et al., 2003). Given their size Basal tetrapods (formerly known as labrynthodont amphi­ diversity (and relatively small size at birth), it is virtually bians) gave rise to reptiles in the Carboniferous (320–310 certain that members of the ichthyosaur feeding guild preyed MYA). Reptiles were truly terrestrial, laying shelled eggs and upon each other and there is some fossil evidence to support having relatively impermeable skins. During the Mesozoic this view (e.g., McGowan, 1974). (230–63 MYA), reptiles became extremely important in marine Plesiosaurs (190–65 MYA) were highly successful Mesozoic trophic biology and occupied coastal and estuarine niches that, reptiles, many of which were large and oceanic predators on since major extinctions at the end of the Mesozoic, have sub­ fish and cephalopods (e.g., belemnites). Although the best- sequently been taken over by a variety of fish and marine known species were long necked with a small head and four mammals. Some groups (notably the ichthyosaurs) were vivi­ roughly equal-sized flippers, morphological diversity was high, parous and independent of land. with short-necked, large-headed pliosaurs being apex predators Ichthyosaurs (230–90 MYA) formed a highly diverse that competed with ichthyosaurs. Many plesiosaurs were cer­ group, ranging from 2 to 20 m in overall length and occupied tainly coastal and omnivorous; McHenry et al. (2005) recently both oceanic and coastal ecological niches. Coastal species described the gut contents of elasmosaurs (extremely long- appear to have been smaller and rather less streamlined than necked plesiosaurs) from early Cretaceous deposits of the well-known highly streamlined tuna-like forms with large Australia. They found remains of fish and belemnites – and eyes (e.g., Opthalmosaurus) that probably foraged offshore in also remains of gastropod and bivalve mollusks as well as deep water. Whereas oceanic forms seem to have specialized crinoid echinoderms and crustacean exoskeletons. They noted in feeding on belemnite cephalopods (though this may be an that the elasmosaurs had conical teeth like modern fish and 227 Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, 2011, Vol.6, 227-249, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-2.00618-5 Author's personal copy 228 High-Trophic-Level Consumers: Trophic Relationships of Reptiles and Amphibians of Coastal and Estuarine Ecosystems Placodus Cyamodus Henodus Figure 1 Placodont diversity. Reproduced with permission from Naish, D., 2004. Fossils explained 48. Placodonts. Geology Today 20, 153–158. squid eaters, but that the stomachs contained gastroliths (as do there is plentiful evidence that they also ate ammonites and modern crocodilians) which would have allowed hard-shelled nautiloids, besides preying on other mosasaurs, small plesio­ prey to be triturated, even though the animals had first to be saurs, sea turtles, and seabirds. Mosasaur anatomy was not swallowed whole. compatible with high swimming speeds, so it seems likely Triassic (230–63 MYA) placodonts (see Naish (2004) for that they were ambush, rather than pursuit predators (except review; Figure 1) were modest-sized (1–3 m overall length), when preying on slow-moving groups such as nautiloids). As shallow water durophagous benthic predators that appear to early mosasaurs had highly kinetic skulls (like snakes), they have subsisted predominantly upon bivalve mollusks, crushed were able to ingest relatively large prey items (e.g., large teleost by palatine teeth, although crustaceans and even brachiopods fish). With increasing study, it has become clear that mosasaurs have been suggested as possible food items. Many placodonts were extremely diverse in form, and occupied a variety of were heavily armored and superficially resembled turtles, being trophic niches, exploiting pelagic and benthic food resources. short-legged and often with carapaces (Figure 1). They prob­ For example, Martin (2007) confirmed that a mosasaur ably foraged predominantly on sandy and muddy bottoms, (Globidens) with rounded crusher teeth had bivalve remains in digging into the substratum with limbs and/or snouts to extract its stomach. Whereas juvenile mosasaurs probably fell prey to a bivalves. However, most placodonts had robust, spatulate teeth range of pterosaurs, birds, and fish, it seems likely that adult at the front of the jaws, so appear to have been capable of mosasaurs were only preyed upon by other mosasaurs, by plucking prey from rocky substrata; again, bivalve mollusks marine crocodiles, or by sharks. Healed bite marks on mosa­ may have been the most important prey, though gastropods saur skeletons are evidence of shark predation (rather than and even large barnacles are other likely candidates. Placodonts scavenging) (Rothschild et al., 2005). were slow moving and it has been suggested that adults were In recent years, paleontological studies have revealed that preyed upon by sharks or larger coastal marine reptiles such as flying pterosaurs (which arose in the Triassic 225 MYA and crocodilian phytosaurs (Mazin and Pinna, 1993). Certainly disappeared about 65 MYA, but coexisted with birds for 100 juveniles are known to have fallen prey to the small (1 m) million years) predominantly occupied coastal niches, nothosaur (plesiosaur precursor) Lariosaurus (Tschanz, 1989) whereas birds dominated in terrestrial and inland habitats and, by analogy with bird predation, it has been suggested that (Wang et al., 2005). Pterosaurs formed a highly diverse pterosaurs may have preyed upon them (Mazin and Pinna, group anatomically and ecologically; old ideas of weak, lim­ 1993). It seems probable that placodonts were egg layers like ited fliers that were nearly helpless on land have been replaced sea turtles, and that eggs and hatchlings would therefore have by concepts of powerful, agile flying and running animals provided a marine energetic subsidy for coastal terrestrial (probably endothermic) that filled ecological niches currently predators. occupied by albatrosses, pelicans, gulls, waders, etc. It is evi­ Mosasaurs made up the last great group
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Winged Undertakers Digest the Deceased STORY and PHOTOS by LOWELL WASHBURN
    nderrated and nappreciated Winged Undertakers Digest the Deceased STORY AND PHOTOS BY LOWELL WASHBURN 28 Iowa outdoors • JULY / AUGUST 2008 Although no one can for sure say why, turkey vultures have become increasingly common during the past two decades. Often referred to as “TVs” by birding enthusiasts, turkey vultures derive their name from the featherless, red heads of adults. And there’s no denying that, at least from a distance, a roosted vulture does somewhat resemble a male wild turkey. There’s good reason for the vulture’s distinctive, though ugly, bare head. As an avid consumer of carrion, TVs routinely forage in some pretty nasty places. The complete lack of head and neck feathers aids in maintaining cleanliness. Contrary to popular belief, vultures are among the cleanest of birds, spending up to four hours per day bathing and preening—more time than is documented for any other Iowa bird. WWW.IOWADNR.GOV 29 “It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.” t’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.” than a bit disgusting. But for hungry vultures, the opportunity We’ve all heard that line a thousand times. represented nothing less than a four-star banquet—an asphalt But for me, the well-worn phrase gained new version of a carrion eater’s 21 Club of New York fame. “ meaning as I paused to watch members of a local After slowing and pulling aside to observe, it quickly Ihighway cleanup crew doing their dirty job. became apparent this bird show was not designed The crew was a gathering of turkey vultures, and for anyone with a queasy stomach.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Vulture AKA: Turkey Buzzard, Buzzard, Vulture, Carrion Crow, Carrion Buzzard, Etc
    Turkey Vulture AKA: Turkey Buzzard, Buzzard, Vulture, Carrion Crow, Carrion Buzzard, etc. Scientific Classification: Animalia, Chordata, Aves, Incertae sedis (disputed), Cathartidae; Cathartes; C. aura. Bird Size & Markings: Adult Turkey Vultures can be 32” long, stand 30” high and have 6 foot wingspans. Males and females have brownish-black body plum- age, silvery-gray flight feathers, bare red heads and a short yellow hooked bill. Turkey Vultures have very limited vocalization; it can only hiss or grunt. Habitat: The Turkey Vulture is the most abundant vulture in the Americas. It is commonly found in open and semi-open areas throughout the Americas from southern Canada to Cape Horn. It is a permanent resident in southern US States, though northern birds may migrate as far as South America. It prefers to roost on tall dead trees or high bare cliffs. It will roost on man-made structures such as water towers, skyscrapers, billboards and other structures of sufficient height. Nesting/Dens: There is little or no construction of a nest; eggs are laid on bare surfaces in protected locations such as a cliff, cave, burrow or inside a hollow A Turkey Vulture’s primary method of defence tree. They lay 1 or 2 eggs for each brood. Chicks fledge 9 to 10 weeks after hatch- is the projection vomiting of semi-digested car- ing. Family groups stay together until fall. rion. This deters most attackers (No doubt!). Food: Turkey Vultures prefer to feed on fresh carrion ranging in size from small mammals and dead fish to dead cattle and other grazers. They prefer fresh car- rion and avoid rotting carcasses.
    [Show full text]
  • COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228
    Jeffrey S. Green Assistant Regional Director USDA-APHIS- COYOTES Animal Damage Control Lakewood, Colorado 80228 F. Robert Henderson Extension Specialist Animal Damage Control Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas 66506-1600 Mark D. Collinge State Director USDA-APHIS- Animal Damage Control Boise, Idaho 83705 Fig. 1. Coyote, Canis latrans Damage Prevention and Shed lambing, kidding, and calving Toxicants usually reduce coyote predation. Control Methods M-44 ejector devices for use with Remove carrion to help limit coyote sodium cyanide-loaded plastic Exclusion populations. capsules. They are most effective Produce livestock in confinement. Frightening Agents and during cold weather (fall to spring). Repellents Herd livestock into pens at night. Livestock protection collars (LPC) Guarding dogs: Some dogs have containing Compound 1080 Exclusion fences (net-wire and/or (sodium monofluoroacetate) are electric), properly constructed and significantly reduced coyote predation. registered for use only in certain maintained, can aid significantly in states. reducing predation. Donkeys and llamas: Some are Fumigants Cultural Methods and aggressive toward canines and have Habitat Modification reduced coyote predation. Gas cartridges are registered as a burrow (den) fumigant. Select pastures that have a lower Sonic and visual repellents: Strobe incidence of predation to reduce lights, sirens, propane cannons, and Trapping exposure of livestock to predation. others have reduced predation on both sheep and calves. Leghold traps (Nos. 3 and 4) are Herding of livestock generally reduces effective and are the most versatile Chemical odor and taste repellents: predation due to human presence control tool. during the herding period. None have shown sufficient effectiveness to be registered for Snares are effective where coyotes pass Change lambing, kidding, and calving use.
    [Show full text]
  • 14787-April 06
    An Inquiry-Based Exercise for Demonstrating Prey Preference in SNAKES AARON J. PLACE CHARLES I. ABRAMSON he use of live animals at all educational levels priate for students in middle school, high school, and Thas declined in recent years (Abramson et al., 1999c). college. Despite this trend, the curiosity many students have Snakes have much to recommend them for class- toward animals can be utilized to teach biological con- room study. They are readily captured in the field and cepts in the classroom. Live animals continue to be available from pet stores and biological supply houses used in the high school and undergraduate science such as Wards Scientific and Connecticut Valley classroom to teach physiology, ecology, and behavior Biological Supply House. Snakes can also be pur- (Abramson, 1990; Abramson et al., 1996; Abramson et chased from reptile dealers such as Glades Herp, Inc. al., 1999a,b; Darling, 2001; French, 2001; Rop, 2001). (http://www.gherp.com). In addition to wide availabil- The recent promotion of inquiry-based learning ity, snakes are easy to handle and maintain. Generally, techniques (Uno, 1990) is well suited to the use of ani- most snakes can be housed in appropriately-sized mals in the classroom. Working with living organisms plastic storage containers with a paper substrate and directly engages students and stimulates them to water available ad libitum. Appropriate food should be & INVESTIGATION INQUIRY actively participate in the learning process. Students offered every 7-10 days for large species and every 2-3 develop a greater appreciation for living things, the days for small species.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do We Study Animal Toxins?
    ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCH Why do we study animal toxins? Yun ZHANG* Key Laboratory of Animal Models and Human Disease Mechanisms of The Chinese Academy of Sciences & Yunnan Province, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming Yunnan 650223, China ABSTRACT Biological roles of venoms........................................................................(187) Predation.....................................................................................................(187) Defense .......................................................................................................(187) Venom (toxins) is an important trait evolved along Competition ................................................................................................(188) the evolutionary tree of animals. Our knowledges on Antimicrobial defense ................................................................................(188) venoms, such as their origins and loss, the biological Communication ..........................................................................................(188) relevance and the coevolutionary patterns with other Venom loss..................................................................................................(188) Toxins in animal venoms..........................................................................(188) organisms are greatly helpful in understanding many Selection pressures and animal toxins........................................................(188) fundamental biological questions, i.e.,
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Reptiles Arne R
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Study of Biological Complexity Publications Center for the Study of Biological Complexity 2011 Marine Reptiles Arne R. Rasmessen The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts John D. Murphy Field Museum of Natural History Medy Ompi Sam Ratulangi University J. Whitfield iG bbons University of Georgia Peter Uetz Virginia Commonwealth University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/csbc_pubs Part of the Life Sciences Commons Copyright: © 2011 Rasmussen et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Downloaded from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/csbc_pubs/20 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for the Study of Biological Complexity at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Study of Biological Complexity Publications by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review Marine Reptiles Arne Redsted Rasmussen1, John C. Murphy2, Medy Ompi3, J. Whitfield Gibbons4, Peter Uetz5* 1 School of Conservation, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2 Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, 3 Marine Biology Laboratory, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia, 4 Savannah River Ecology Lab, University of Georgia, Aiken, South Carolina, United States of America, 5 Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America Of the more than 12,000 species and subspecies of extant Caribbean, although some species occasionally travel as far north reptiles, about 100 have re-entered the ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • California Condor (Gymnogyps Californianus) 5-Year Review
    California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region June 2013 Acknowledgement: The Service gratefully acknowledges the commitment and efforts of the California Condor Recovery Program partners for their many on-going contributions towards condor recovery. Our partners were instrumental both in ensuring that we used the best available science to craft our analyses and recommendations in this 5-year review and in providing individual feedback that was used to refine this document. Photo Credit: Unless otherwise indicated, all photos, charts, and graphs are products of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Page | 2 5-YEAR REVIEW California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5- year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, changed in status from endangered to threatened, or changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology, Reproduction and Diet of the Greater Sea Snake, Hydrophis Major (Elapidae, Hydrophiinae)
    Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-019-01833-5 REPORT Morphology, reproduction and diet of the greater sea snake, Hydrophis major (Elapidae, Hydrophiinae) 1 1 2 R. Shine • T. Shine • C. Goiran Received: 5 January 2019 / Accepted: 9 June 2019 Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract Although widespread, the large Hydrophiinae relatives in some respects, other characteristics (such as sea snake Hydrophis major is poorly known ecologically. scale rugosity, low proportion of juveniles in collections, We dissected 119 preserved specimens in museum col- frequent production of small litters of large offspring) may lections to quantify body sizes and proportions, sexual reflect adaptation to marine habitats. dimorphism, reproductive biology and diet. The sexes mature at similar snout–vent lengths (SVLs, about 75 cm) Keywords Dietary specialisation Á Disteira major Á and attain similar maximum sizes (females 123 cm vs. Elapidae Á Life-history Á Olive-headed sea snake Á Trophic males 122 cm SVL), but females in our sample exhibited ecology larger mean sizes than did males (means 98.8 vs. 93.1 cm SVL). The adult sex ratio in museum specimens was highly female-biased (64:30), and the high proportion of repro- Introduction ductive females during the austral summer suggests annual reproduction. At the same SVL, females had shorter tails Rates of speciation are higher in the viviparous sea snakes and wider bodies than did males, but sex differences in (Hydrophiinae) than in any other extant group of reptiles. other body proportions (e.g. tail shape, head dimensions, In particular, one clade of sea snakes—the Hydrophis eye diameter) were minimal.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evolutionary Solution of Terrestrial Isopods to Cope with Low
    © 2017. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Journal of Experimental Biology (2017) 220, 1563-1567 doi:10.1242/jeb.156661 SHORT COMMUNICATION An evolutionary solution of terrestrial isopods to cope with low atmospheric oxygen levels Terézia Horváthová*, Andrzej Antoł, Marcin Czarnoleski, Jan Kozłowski and Ulf Bauchinger ABSTRACT alternatively represent secondary adaptations to meet changing The evolution of current terrestrial life was founded by major waves of oxygen requirements in organisms subject to environmental land invasion coinciding with high atmospheric oxygen content. change. These waves were followed by periods with substantially reduced Here, we show that catch-up growth is probably a further example oxygen concentration and accompanied by the evolution of novel of such an evolutionary innovation. Switching from aquatic to air traits. Reproduction and development are limiting factors for conditions during development within the motherly brood pouch of Porcellio scaber evolutionary water–land transitions, and brood care has probably the terrestrial isopod relaxes oxygen limitations facilitated land invasion. Peracarid crustaceans provide parental care and facilitates accelerated growth under motherly protection. Our for their offspring by brooding the early stages within the motherly findings provide important insights into the role of oxygen in brood brood pouch, the marsupium. Terrestrial isopod progeny begin care in present-day terrestrial crustaceans. ontogenetic development within the marsupium in water, but conclude development within the marsupium in air. Our results for MATERIALS AND METHODS progeny growth until hatching from the marsupium provide evidence Experimental animals for the limiting effects of oxygen concentration and for a potentially Early development in terrestrial isopods occurs sequentially in adaptive solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Reptiles: Adaptations, Taxonomy, Distribution and Life Cycles - A
    MARINE ECOLOGY – Marine Reptiles: Adaptations, Taxonomy, Distribution and Life Cycles - A. Bertolero, J. Donoyan, B. Weitzmann MARINE REPTILES: ADAPTATIONS, TAXONOMY, DISTRIBUTION AND LIFE CYCLES A. Bertolero Department of Animal Biology, University of Barcelona, Spain J. Donoyan Documentary Centre, Ebro Delta Natural Park, Tarragona, Spain B. Weitzmann DEPANA, Project of Sustainable Management of Punta de la Mora, Tarragona, Spain Keywords: Reptile, marine, sea adaptations, sea turtles, Marine Iguana, sea snakes, salt balance, diving adaptation, thermoregulation, life cycle, conservation. Contents 1. Introduction 2. The fossil marine reptiles 3. Physiological adaptations to sea life 3.1. Salt and water balance 3.2. Respiration and diving adaptations 3.3. Thermoregulation 3.4. Locomotion 4. Sea Turtles 4.1. Morphology and adaptations 4.2. Life cycle and behaviour 4.3. Feeding 4.4. Predators 4.5. Habitat and distribution 4.6. Conservation 5. Marine Iguana 5.1. Morphology and adaptations 5.2. Life cycle and behavior 5.3. Feeding 5.4. PredatorsUNESCO – EOLSS 5.5. Habitat and distribution 5.6. ConservationSAMPLE CHAPTERS 6. Sea Snakes 6.1. Morphology and adaptations 6.2. Life cycle and behaviour 6.3. Feeding 6.4. Predators 6.5. Habitat and distribution 6.6. Conservation Acknowledgements Glossary ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) MARINE ECOLOGY – Marine Reptiles: Adaptations, Taxonomy, Distribution and Life Cycles - A. Bertolero, J. Donoyan, B. Weitzmann Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary The marine reptiles come from ancient terrestrial forms that eventually colonized the sea. The number of true marine species represents only 1% of all the reptile species that exist today. The true marine species are sea turtles, Marine Iguana and sea snakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna of Australia 2A
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 26. BIOGEOGRAPHY AND PHYLOGENY OF THE SQUAMATA Mark N. Hutchinson & Stephen C. Donnellan 26. BIOGEOGRAPHY AND PHYLOGENY OF THE SQUAMATA This review summarises the current hypotheses of the origin, antiquity and history of the order Squamata, the dominant living reptile group which comprises the lizards, snakes and worm-lizards. The primary concern here is with the broad relationships and origins of the major taxa rather than with local distributional or phylogenetic patterns within Australia. In our review of the phylogenetic hypotheses, where possible we refer principally to data sets that have been analysed by cladistic methods. Analyses based on anatomical morphological data sets are integrated with the results of karyotypic and biochemical data sets. A persistent theme of this chapter is that for most families there are few cladistically analysed morphological data, and karyotypic or biochemical data sets are limited or unavailable. Biogeographic study, especially historical biogeography, cannot proceed unless both phylogenetic data are available for the taxa and geological data are available for the physical environment. Again, the reader will find that geological data are very uncertain regarding the degree and timing of the isolation of the Australian continent from Asia and Antarctica. In most cases, therefore, conclusions should be regarded very cautiously. The number of squamate families in Australia is low. Five of approximately fifteen lizard families and five or six of eleven snake families occur in the region; amphisbaenians are absent. Opinions vary concerning the actual number of families recognised in the Australian fauna, depending on whether the Pygopodidae are regarded as distinct from the Gekkonidae, and whether sea snakes, Hydrophiidae and Laticaudidae, are recognised as separate from the Elapidae.
    [Show full text]