Ecología trófica de Liolaemus espinozai Abdala, 2005 (Sauria: Liolaemidae) en Campo El Arenal, Catamarca, Argentina

Effect of agricultural activity on diet in an assemblage of lizards from Monte, Argentina

“…Possibly, the variability of diet was due to the observed 40% dissimilarity in diet, that is species at the cultivated site are consuming different prey because there is 20% dissimilarity in arthropod assembly found in the agrohabitat. Several authors have demonstrated that most species of the genus Liolaemus have diets with a Formicidae consumption of over 70% (Acosta et al., 1996; Aun & Martori, 1998; Halloy et al., 2006; Kozykariski et al., 2011; Quatrini et al., 2001; Semhan et al., 2013;others), including the species belonging to this genus observed at the study site, L. darwinii (Avila & Acosta, 1993; de Viana et al., 1994), L. wiegamnnii (Aun et al., 1999), L. riojanus (Ripoll Busso, unpublished data) and L. cuyanus , although the latter is classified as an omnivore (Moreno‐Azócar & Acosta, 2011). For species of the Phylodactillidae family, preference for Hymenoptera as fundamental prey category has been recorded in H. underwoodi (Blanco Fager, unpublished data), H. horrida (before H. fasciata ) (Martori et al., 2002; Nieva‐Cocilio et al., 2016) and other species of the genus (Blanco et al., 2009; Kun et al., 2010).…”

Nicho trófico y bioclimático de dos especies andinas cercanamente emparentadas de <i>Liolaemus </i>(Squamata, Liolaemidae) en el sur del Perú

“…Asimismo, L. ruibali presentó como presa fundamental a Hemiptera (Villavicencio et al 2005). Es posible que la mayor presencia de coleópteros en la dieta de estas especies se deba a que estos insectos predominan en plantas herbáceas por ser esencialmente fitófagos, tal como ha sido señalado para Microlophus occipitalis (Chávez-Villavicencio que especies de Liolaemus tienen un comportamiento oportunista y flexible, pero con una aparente especialización en su dieta, mostrando una preferencia por ciertos tipos de presas, pero que serían presas disponibles en sus microhábitats, es decir durante temporadas adversas son capaces de consumir una variedad de presas (Aun et al 1999, Cabrera & Scrocchi 2020, Llanqui et al 2022. Esta estrategia de alimentación ha sido sugerida como una respuesta a un entorno donde el número de presas se reducen o tiene una distribución irregular (Péfaur & López-Tejeda 1983).…”

Microhabitat use, daily activity pattern, and diet of Liolaemus etheridgei Laurent, 1998 (Reptilia: Liolaemidae) in the Andean Polylepis forests of Arequipa, Peru

“…Based on the percentage of plant material found, L. etheridgei can be classified as herbivorous, which contradicts the classification of this lizard as mainly arthropophagous by Olivera‐Jara and Aguilar ( 2020 ). L. etheridgei would therefore belong to the 9.5% of species within the Eulaemus subgenus, considered herbivores (Cabrera & Scrocchi Manfrini, 2020 ). Analysis of diet within each forest found L. etheridgei to be herbivorous in Tuctumpaya and omnivorous in El Simbral, although the latter showed a percentage of plant consumption close to the critical value that separates omnivorous from herbivorous (Figure 5 ).…”

“…Thus, prey categories were ordered under the following dietary hierarchy: fundamental ( F : %IRI > 75%), secondary (S: 75% > %IRI > 50%), accessory (A: 50% > %IRI > 25%), and accidental (a: 25% > %IRI). This hierarchy was originally proposed for values of the “Lambda segunda” dominance index (Montori, 1991); however, it has regularly been used with other indexes in dietary studies of Liolaemus species (see Cabrera & Scrocchi Manfrini, 2020; Olivera Jara & Aguilar, 2020; Semhan & Halloy, 2016). Trophic niche amplitude was estimated using the standardized Levin's index: $$$ {B}_a=\left(1/\left(\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{p}_i^2\right)-1\right)/\left(n-1\right) $$$, where $$$ {p}_i $$$ is the proportion of prey category i , and $$$ n $$$ is the total number of prey categories (Krebs, 1999).…”