Abstract
Basking and retreat sites constitute a key resource in the habitat of any ectotherm. Identifying the elements that are used and modelling the microhabitat selection of species is crucial for assessing the impact of anthropogenic disturbances at the population level and, therefore, focusing on conservation efforts. We investigated how structural attributes of the microhabitat and biotic factors influence the probability of basking and retreat sites use by Phymaturus palluma, a rock-dwelling and viviparous lizard endemic to the Central Andes of Argentina. We measured the characteristics of a series of rocks (basking sites) and shelters (retreat sites) in the study area and compared lizard resource use versus availability using resource selection analyses (RSFs). According to our best RSF model, P. palluma select high and large rocks as basking sites and prefer those near their retreat sites and far from the basking sites of their neighbours. In contrast, retreat site selection is related to the length, depth, slope, and width of the shelter. Microhabitat site selection of P. palluma is associated with behavioural improvements such as enhancing basking capacity, reducing both intraspecific competition with neighbours and predation risk.
Highlights
Habitat structure influences several aspects of the life history of an organism, as well as the species’ range and abundance (Reinert 1993, Smith & Ballinger 2001, Goldsbrough et al 2006)
We recorded and characterized 301 rocks, 121 of which were considered to be used by individuals of P. palluma, whereas 180 remained available
The selection of basking and retreat sites by P. palluma was influenced by abiotic features of the rocks and shelters, such as size and structure and by biotic factors, such as distance to conspecifics
Summary
Habitat structure influences several aspects of the life history of an organism, as well as the species’ range and abundance (Reinert 1993, Smith & Ballinger 2001, Goldsbrough et al 2006). Distribution is strongly related to climatic variables (Bozinovic et al 2011), while at the local scale, microhabitat selection can help to buffer sub-optimal environmental conditions, which is essential to predict species distribution (Huey et al 2012). While macrohabitat is defined as the spatial area in which individuals perform all their biological functions, the term microhabitat refers to those environmental variables (e.g., vegetation, structural aspects of rocks and shelters, biotic interactions) that influence the allocation of time and energy of the individual (i.e. that affect individual behaviour) within its macrohabitat (Morris 1987, Jorgensen 2004). Microhabitat selection involves the interplay between abiotic factors, such as rock and shelter characteristics, and biotic factors such as feeding resources, intraspecific competition, and the presence of reproductive females and predators (Huey 1991, Downes & Shine 1998, Downes 2001). Given the complexity of factors that influence the establishment of species, determining the preference or avoidance of one particular habitat (or microhabitat) in relation to its availability is
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
