Anat Feldman’s research while affiliated with Tel Aviv University and other places

Aim The aim was to determine how reptile populations respond to anthropogenic habitat modification and determine whether species traits and environmental factors influence such responses. Location Global. Time period 1981–2018. Major taxa studied Squamata. Methods We compiled a database of 56 studies reporting how habitat modification affects reptile abundance and calculated standardized mean differences in abundance (Hedges’ g ). We used Bayesian meta‐analytical models to test whether responses to habitat modification depended on body size, clutch size, reproductive mode, habitat specialization, range size, disturbance type, vegetation type, temperature and precipitation. Results Based on 815 effect sizes from 376 species, we found an overall negative effect of habitat modification on reptile abundance (mean Hedges’ g = −0.43, 95% credible intervals = −0.61 to −0.26). Reptile abundance was, on average, one‐third lower in modified compared with unmodified habitats. Small range sizes and small clutch sizes were associated with more negative responses to habitat modification, although the responses were weak and the credible intervals overlapped zero. We detected no effects of body size, habitat specialization, reproductive mode (egg‐laying or live‐bearing), temperature or precipitation. Some families exhibited more negative responses than others, although overall there was no phylogenetic signal in the data. Mining had the most negative impacts on reptile abundance, followed by agriculture, grazing, plantations and patch size reduction, whereas the mean effect of logging was neutral. Main conclusions Habitat modification is a key cause of reptile population declines, although there is variability in responses both within and between species, families and vegetation types. The effect of disturbance type appeared to be related to the intensity of habitat modification. Ongoing development of environmentally sustainable practices that ameliorate anthropogenic impacts is urgently needed to prevent declines in reptile populations.

Viviparity (live‐bearing) has independently evolved from oviparity (egg‐laying) in more than 100 lineages of squamates (lizards and snakes). We might expect consequent shifts in selective forces to affect per‐brood reproductive investment (RI = total mass of offspring relative to maternal mass) and in the way in which that output is partitioned (number vs. size of offspring per brood). Based on the assumption that newly born offspring are heavier than eggs, we predicted that live‐bearing must entail either increased RI or a reduction in offspring size and/or fecundity. However, our phylogenetically controlled analysis of data on 1,259 squamate species revealed no significant differences in mean offspring size, clutch size or RI between oviparous and viviparous squamates. We attribute this paradoxical result to (1) strong selection on offspring sizes, unaffected by parity mode, (2) the lack of a larval stage in amniotes, favouring large eggs even in the ancestral oviparous mode and (3) the ability of viviparous females to decrease the mass of uterine embryos by reducing extra‐embryonic water stores. Our analysis shows that squamate eggs (when laid) weigh about the same as the hatchlings that emerge from them (despite a many‐fold increase in embryo mass during incubation). Most of the egg mass is due to components (such as water stores and the eggshell) not required for oviductal incubation. That repackaging enables live‐born offspring to be accommodated within the mother's body without increasing total litter mass. The consequent stasis in reproductive burden during the evolutionary transition from oviparity to viviparity may have facilitated frequent shifts in parity modes.

In this Article originally published, owing to a technical error, the author ‘Laurent Chirio’ was mistakenly designated as a corresponding author in the HTML version, the PDF was correct. This error has now been corrected in the HTML version. Further, in Supplementary Table 3, the authors misspelt the surname of ‘Danny Meirte’; this file has now been replaced.