Big-mouthed babies drove the evolution of giant island snakes

May 15, 2012
Some tiger snake populations on Australian islands have evolved to be giants, nearly twice the size of their mainland counterparts. New research in the American Naturalist suggests that the need to have big-mouthed babies drove the evolution of these enormous elapids. Credit: Fabien Aubret

Some populations of tiger snakes stranded for thousands of years on tiny islands surrounding Australia have evolved to be giants, growing to nearly twice the size of their mainland cousins. Now, new research in The American Naturalist suggests that the enormity of these elapids was driven by the need to have big-mouthed babies.

Mainland tiger , which generally max out at 35 inches (89 cm) long, patrol swampy areas in search of frogs, their dietary staple. When sea levels rose around 10,000 years ago, some tiger snakes found themselves marooned on that would become dry and frog-free. With their favorite food gone, the island snakes "are now thriving on an altered diet consisting of skinks, rodents, and nesting oceanic bird ," said study author Fabien Aubret of La Station d'Ecologie Experimentale du CNRS à Moulis.

Along with the dietary shift came dramatic changes in the snakes' adult body sizes. On some islands, the snakes shrank, becoming significantly smaller than mainland snakes. But other islands have produced giants, measuring 60 inches (1.5 meters) and weighing as much as three times more than mainland snakes.

Aubret hypothesized that the size of available prey on each island was driving the variation in . Snakes are gape-limited predators, meaning they swallow their prey whole and can only dine on animals they can wrap their mouths around. This gape limitation would be most pronounced in newborn snakes, when their mouths are at their smallest. Simply put, baby snakes born too small to partake of the local cuisine would have little chance to survive. Where are larger, selection would favor larger newborn snakes—with larger mouths. That head start in size at birth could be the reason for larger size in adulthood.

To test his idea, Aubret took field expeditions to 12 islands, collecting and measuring 597 adult snakes. He released the males and non-pregnant females, and brought 72 pregnant snakes back to the lab. After the snakes gave birth, he measured each of the 1,084 babies they produced. He then looked for correlations between snake size at birth and the size of prey animals available on each island. He also tested for correlations between birth size and adult size.

Some tiger snake populations on Australian islands have evolved to be giants, nearly twice the size of their mainland counterparts. New research in the American Naturalist suggests that the need to have big-mouthed babies drove the evolution of these enormous elapids. Credit: Fabien Aubret

"The results were unequivocal: snake body size at birth tightly matches the size of prey available on each island," Aubret said.

As predicted, where prey animals were bigger, newborn snakes were bigger and they grew up to be bigger adults. Where prey animals were smaller, newborn snakes followed suit, leading to smaller adults.

A New Dimension to the Island Rule?

Ecologists have long been interested in the peculiarities of island animals. Observations of pygmy elephants and giant rats led a biologist named J. Bristol Foster to propose what became known as the Island Rule. In general, Foster surmised, big animals on islands tend to get smaller than mainland counterparts because of limited access to food. Small animals tend to get larger because islands tend to have fewer predators. Since it was proposed in the 1960s, numerous exceptions to Foster's rule have been noted, and scientists now agree that the ecological factors that influence island body size are far more complex than Foster had imagined.

Aubret's findings add yet another dimension.

"Mean adult body size has always been used as a traditional measure in the literature," he writes. "On the other hand, patterns of variation for body size at birth in island populations have received, to my knowledge, no attention at all."

Aubret's work shows that selection isn't necessarily acting on adult body size.

"This study confirms that adult size variations on islands may be a nonadaptive consequence of selection acting on birth size," he said. "Animals may become either giant or dwarf adults on islands for the simple fact that they were born either unusually large or small bodied."

Explore further: Researchers record sight neurons in jumping spider brain

More information: Fabien Aubret, "Body-Size Evolution on Islands: Are Adult Size Variations in Tiger Snakes a Nonadaptive Consequence of Selection on Birth Size?" The American Naturalist 179:6 (June 2012).

Provided by University of Chicago Press Journals

5 /5 (3 votes)

Related Stories

Huge hamsters and pint-sized porcupines thrive on islands

Mar 23, 2012

From miniature elephants to monster mice, and even Hobbit-sized humans, size changes in island animals are well-known to science. Biologists have long believed that large animals evolving on islands tend to get smaller, while ...

Territorial defense by the Taiwanese Kukrisnake

Apr 20, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a first documented case of territorial behavior by a species of snake, a team led by Wen-San Huang of Taiwan’s National Museum of Natural Science and Cornell University discuss the ...

The chicken was eaten before the egg

Apr 13, 2006

University of Nevada-Las Vegas scientists say they've confirmed Darwin's theory that many traits can be explained by the ancestral lineage of a species.

Snakes Hear in Stereo

May 16, 2008

Physicists from the University Munich in Germany and the University of Topeka, Kansas have strong new evidence that snakes can hear through their jaws. Snakes don't have outer ears, leading to the myth that they can't hear ...

Recommended for you

Secret wing colours attract female fruit flies

16 hours ago

Bright colours appear on a fruit fly's transparent wings against a dark background as a result of light refraction. Researchers from Lund University in Sweden have now demonstrated that females choose a mate ...

Pigeons and people play the odds when rewards are higher

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —If you were weighing the risks, would you choose to receive a guaranteed $100, or take a 50/50 chance of winning either $200 or nothing? Researchers at the University of Alberta have shown that ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RDSchaefer
1.6 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
This is not evolution, it is adaptation. Yes, they're bigger but they are still tiger snakes aren't they?
dschlink
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
If adaptation goes far enough so that interbreeding is no longer possible, then a new species has evolved. However, natural selection is at work throughout the process. Evolution is not an abrupt either-or process.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
This is not evolution, it is adaptation. Yes, they're bigger but they are still tiger snakes aren't they?


DUMB!

Evolution is the change in frequency of a given allele within a population, so even if you are a shit-for-brains creationist that doesn't believe in "macro" evolution you are STILL wrong, this is still an example of evolution either way.

Retard.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
If adaptation goes far enough so that interbreeding is no longer possible, then a new species has evolved..

So we are still at the adaptation level with these snakes. We shouldn't confuse apparent facts just because of some mainstream ideology. The screams like "dumb" and "retard" speak for itself and their author should be reported with all people, who are involved in social atmosphere of PO discussions.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
"evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

http://www.talkor...ion.html

I say you guys are dumb and/or retarded because you ARE dumb and/or retarded. I'll say it again, biological evolution is any change in the relative frequency of an allele in a population across successive generations. This definition is THE definition, and this means that the article IS talking about evolution and not "adaptation"... the distinction is in your retard creationist brains alone, just like "macro" and "micro" evolution.