Criterios utilizados en los estudios de usabilidad

Three sets of aggregation experiments were conducted between 7 August 2008 and 10 February 2009. For each trial, a group of three geckos were placed in the centre of a test arena with six identical optimised shelters in the evening before data collection (between 16:00 and 18:00 h) to allow acclimatisation. Shelter positions of geckos were recorded the next morning between 08:00 and 10:00 h. The test arena was a rectangular Perspex® container (as described above), lined with filter paper and covered with a meshed lid. Since some geckos had not retreated to a shelter during morning checks in shelter choice experiments (presumably due to low ambient light conditions), a light source was placed on top of the lid and set to a 12:12 L:D photo cycle, controlled by a timer (lights on at 07:00 h) to encourage geckos to retreat. The six optimised shelters (see Table 1) were placed side‐by‐side on top of granite tiles with all openings facing

towards the viewing window. The room temperature was set at 24 C (controlled by a

55

mister. Shelter temperatures and humidity levels were monitored with a HOBO® data logger that was randomly assigned to one of the six shelters (mean Temperature ± SD at

8:00 h: 20.58 ± 1.38 C, min‐max: 18.28 – 24.40 C, mean absolute humidity ± SD: 12.36

± 2.33 mg/m3_{, min‐max: 8.40 – 19.00 mg/m}3_{). Individual geckos that were combined in}

a trial were taken from different enclosures and had never encountered one another during their time in captivity (>15 months), unless otherwise stated. The focal animal was randomly chosen from the study population and had the choice of grouping with two randomly selected conspecifics (test geckos). Each focal animal was only used once per experiment and no gecko was combined with the same individual more than once throughout the entire study. Each gecko was labelled with a non‐toxic (xylene‐free) silver‐pen marking on their flank to allow individual identification. The following

experimental treatments and group combinations were employed: (1) Sex andSeason:

Adult focal geckos (4 males, 9 females) were placed in test arenas, each with an adult male and a female conspecific. Trials were carried out during the non‐mating season (winter, 7 to 17 August 2008) and during the mating season (spring, 24 September to 21

October 2008). (2) Relatedness: Focal geckos (juveniles) were either placed in a test

arena with a sibling and an unrelated juvenile (10 trials) or with their mother and an unrelated female (9 trials). Trials were carried out 8 December 2008 to 7 January 2009

(summer). (3) Familiarity: Eighteen adult focal geckos (9 males, 9 females) were placed

in the test arenas with a familiar and unfamiliar adult conspecific of the opposite sex. Additionally, nine adult focal geckos (females) were placed in a test arena with a familiar and unfamiliar conspecific of the same sex. Familiarity status was based on whether or not geckos shared the same outdoor enclosure during the 24 months period before the trial was carried out. Trials were carried out 8 January 2009 to 10 February 2009 (summer, non‐ mating season).

All experimental treatments and group combinations are summarised in Table 2. The unequal sample sizes were due to the limited availability of study animals with specific ‘social traits’.

Data analyses

Preliminary contingency table analysis (Fisher’s exact tests) revealed no differences in shelter trait selection behaviour between adult and juveniles in any experiment (all p > 0.1). Therefore both groups were combined in the analysis for shelter preference. Selection frequencies of the different shelter types were compared using binomial tests (two shelter types) or chi‐square goodness‐of‐fit tests (three or four shelter types) assuming that each shelter was equally attractive. Binomial tests were computed

56

following a significant result of a chi‐square test to compare pairs of shelter traits. Sequential Bonferroni corrections (Holm 1979) were applied to correct for multiple comparisons. If a shelter type was not visited by any gecko, then it was assumed that this shelter type was avoided, and thus was excluded from the analysis to reduce the number of comparisons. Trials in which geckos failed to retreat under any shelter were excluded from analyses.

To determine whether focal geckos aggregated, the number of partners of each focal gecko per trial was compared with random expected frequencies. Expected frequencies were derived from calculating Poisson probabilities based on the mean observed

frequencies of partners per focal animal for the entire study (

x

multiplying the probabilities with the number of trials per experiment.

As focal geckos never shared shelters with more than one test gecko, frequency categories with one or two partners were pooled for analyses. Expected and observed frequencies were compared with chi‐square goodness‐of‐fit exact tests to test the null hypothesis that shelter aggregations involving focal and test geckos occurred at random. Given that only a small proportion of the focal geckos aggregated across all experiments, a statistical analysis of the influence of social factors on grouping behaviour of focal geckos was not possible. Therefore all occurring aggregations (including between non‐ focal geckos) were described and summarised in relation to each treatment category. Contingency table analysis (Fisher’s exact test) was used to examine whether the aggregation tendency of mixed‐sex adult groups varied between mating and non‐mating season. All data analyses were performed using PASW Statistics 18 Core System for Windows with PASW Exact tests add‐on module (SPSS Inc, 2009) and statistical significance was considered at alpha < 0.05. Sequential Bonferroni corrected p‐values were reported (where correction was applied).

57

Results