Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:26:53.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Measurement of Eggshell Thickness Between two Species of Sceloporus Lizards Using Scanning Electron Microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

S. Parker
Affiliation:
California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA92407
D. Polcyn
Affiliation:
California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA92407
J. Thompson
Affiliation:
California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA92407
Get access

Abstract

Thermal environment exerts a strong influence on lizard life histories by constraining seasonal activity time, fecundity, growth, and embryonic development. in cold climates, extending the duration of egg retention within the female's body permits embryos to develop more rapidly than would be possible at ambient nest temperatures. The duration of egg retention time in the oviduct is largely constrained by the ability of the growing embryo to uptake oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Parchment shelled eggs of most squamates (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) while permeable to water and gases, also acts as a diffusive barrier to gas exchange. As a result, most taxa with extended egg retention exhibit a concomitant reduction in eggshell thickness.

To assess the influence of thermal environment on egg retention time, I sampled eggs from the lizards Sceloporus occidentalis and Sceloporus graciosus(Phrynosomatidae) from three populations at high, intermediate, and low elevation, in the San Gabriel Mountains of Southern California.

Type
Student Research Forum (Organized by R. Koch and Z. Mason)
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Adolph, S., and Porter, W., The American Naturalist, 142(1993) 273295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Packard, G. et al., Biological Reviews, 52(1977)71105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Andrews, R. and Mathies, T., BioScience, 50(2000)227238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Dufaure, J. and Hubert, J., Jaquin. Arch. Anat. Microsc. Morphol.Exp, 50(1961)309327.Google Scholar
5.This research was supported by Associated Students Inc., California State University San Bernardino.Google Scholar