Search

Populations of the same species occupying different microhabitats can either exhibit generalized traits across them or display intraspecific variability, adapting to each microhabitat in order to maximize performance. Intraspecific variability contributes to the generation of diversity, following selection and adaptation, and understanding such variability is important for comprehending how individuals choose their microhabitats. Compared with interspecific variability, however, intraspecific variability in functional morphology and its relationship with microhabitat preference and use have been relatively little studied. Here we examined whether populations of the gecko Mediodactylus kotschyi that differ in the substrates they occupy display habitat-specific behaviors and differing morphologies associated with functional adaptation to their microhabitats. We collected 207 geckos from under or on rocks or on trees from seven populations in Greece. On large islands individuals occupy both substrates; whereas small islets are devoid of trees and the geckos are restricted to rocks, while on the mainland they are only found on trees. We determined gecko substrate preferences in the laboratory, together with their clinging abilities to the different substrates. We measured their limbs, digits, and claws and assessed how these measurements relate to clinging ability. Geckos from all populations preferred the tree made available to them, but this preference was not statistically significant. Geckos from both large and small islands clung better to the tree than to the rock in the laboratory, while those from the mainland clung similarly to both substrates. Geckos collected from trees had longer manual digits and hind limbs. Geckos collected from large and small islands had taller (longer on the dorso-ventral axis; henceforth "deeper") claws. Longer digits and deeper but shorter claws were associated with a better ability to cling to rocks. Our findings suggest that while M. kotschyi is potentially preferentially arboreal, due to the great variation and plasticity it possesses, it can successfully also exploit the habitats available on the smallest, treeless islets in the Aegean Sea. Our study suggests that the dichotomous use of generalist versus specialist in describing species' habitat use is oversimplified, and we suggest the use of a generalist–specialist gradient instead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Isolation is a key factor in island biology. It is usually defined as the distance to the geographically nearest mainland, but many other definitions exist. We explored how testing different isolation indices affects the inference of impacts of isolation on faunal characteristics. We focused on land bridge islands and compared the relationships of many spatial and temporal (i.e., through time) isolation indices with community‐, population‐ and individual‐level characteristics (species richness, population density and body size, respectively). Location: Aegean Sea islands, Greece. Time period: Current. Taxon: Many animal taxa. Methods: We estimated 21 isolation indices for 205 islands and recorded species richness data for 15 taxa (invertebrates and vertebrates). We obtained body size data for seven lizard species and population density data for three. We explored how well indices predict each characteristic, in each taxon, by conducting a series of ordinary least squares regressions (controlling for island area when needed) and a meta‐analysis. Results: Isolation was significantly (and negatively) associated with species richness in 10 of 15 taxa. It was significantly (and positively) associated with body size in only one of seven species and was not associated with population density. The effect of isolation on species richness was much weaker than that of island area, regardless of the index tested. Spatial indices generally out‐performed temporal indices, and indices directly related to the mainland out‐performed those related mainly to neighbouring islands. No index was universally superior to others, including the distance to the geographically nearest mainland. Main conclusions: The choice of index can alter our perception of the impacts of isolation on biological patterns. The nearly automatic, ubiquitous use of distance to the geographically nearest mainland misrepresents the complexity of the effects of isolation. We recommend the simultaneous testing of several indices that represent different aspects of isolation, in order to produce more constructive and thorough investigations and avoid imprecise inference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]