Thoughts about gecko husbandry.Contradictions?

[acpart]

I've been thinking about 2 aspects of accepted gecko husbandry that seem contradictory (not to each other, but in and of themselves). I'm wondering what everybody else thinks and whether or not I'm missing something:

a. Using the UTH 24/7 without lights: we know that geckos need belly heat, need heat to digest, and eat and digest at night. They are nocturnal and often bothered by the lights. So we generally keep the UTH on all the time, and the lights off. Now I'm thinking that in nature, there's a big overhead light (sun) shining and heating up the rocks. The leo, of course, is in a hide or burrow so it doesn't have to deal directly with the light. When the sun goes down, the leos come out and benefit from the belly heat of the warm rocks, but how long do they hold their heat? All night? Wouldn't a leo in the wild have limited time with good belly heat and then spend most of the night after the rocks have released their heat?

b. Feeding regularly to avoid fatty liver disease: We worry about geckos not eating and mobilizing the fat in their body, ending up with fatty liver disease. What about geckos that brumate? Is the slowing of their metabolism what prevents the fatty liver disease? Do only geckos in poor health get fatty liver disease?

I'm especially interested in these issues, because I've posted to at least 3 people who heat their enclosures with overhead lights only, explaining about how a UTH is necessary, and I'm also considering officially brumating my leos that are already brumating themselves.

Aliza

 

[sitting_duck]

Nature doesn't always provide the same quality of homes for our pets, as we can.

 

[Bennayboi]

A leo in the wild would only have a few hours of belly heat after the sun goes down. So their time to soak up belly heat would be very limited. I imagine they dont live too long in the wild.

 

[MSMD]

Great thoughts/questions, Aliza! :yes:

As far as 24/7 UTH, I guess my feeling is: that's why we provide the gradient. They don't have to be directly over their belly heat 24/7. That makes our geckos privilaged in that they can situate themselves over their belly heat whenever they need it and move away when they don't. I make sure my gecko room gets a lot of natural light (without any direct sunlight) so that they still get a natural light cycle. This also automatically lets them know the seasons, as well, by the amount of daylight there is in a day.

I think the biggest thing with brumating is that the whole body slows down, thus they are not metabolizing all (or hardly any, for that matter) of their fat stores. The fatty liver disease becomes an issue when their metabolism/body is functioning at a 'normal' level, without adequate nourishment intake to sustain the animal. This is when large amounts of fat stores are burned/used.

These are just my thoughts.

 

[leonut]

A leo in the wild would only have a few hours of belly heat after the sun goes down. So their time to soak up belly heat would be very limited. I imagine they dont live too long in the wild.

Why would they be designed to live in theese conditions just to die young? I believe that in the wild some animals are picked off by natural selection, and the rest live normal lives. Also why would they be capable of living 15 - 20 years if they "don't" live that long in the wild just because they don't get enough heat at night? Why would they live there if the conditions don't support them? They would have died out long ago if that were the case.

I don't mean to sound rude but I've seen this posted before and didn't get a chance to speak so it's been on my mind.

 

[voretaq7]

Why would they be designed to live in theese conditions just to die young? I believe that in the wild some animals are picked off by natural selection, and the rest live normal lives. Also why would they be capable of living 15 - 20 years if they "don't" live that long in the wild just because they don't get enough heat at night? Why would they live there if the conditions don't support them? They would have died out long ago if that were the case.

Leos in the wild face a lot of extra problems that limit their lifespan (mostly being declared a midnight snack by predators), but their nutrition is definitely sub-par compared to what our spoiled captive leos get. They may go days or weeks without being able to find food, and when they do there might not be a convenient warm rock to sit on to digest.

I'm pretty sure it's not an "Oh no! There goes the species!" tragedy, since otherwise they would have died out and we wouldn't have had any to catch and make into pets, but it's definitely a contributing factor to their shorter lifespan in the wild.

 

[voretaq7]

I'll offer my thoughts Aliza -

Re: Belly heat, in the normal range for leos (Pakistan, Afganistan, etc.) the sun can heat dark and medium colored rocks to over 100 degrees (F) during the day, so in the early evening/night when leos are out there is probably a range of belly temperatures ranging from "Sizzlin' Lizard" to "Cold Rock", depending on time, surface color, how cloudy it was, etc. The temperatures and gradient we provide are an idealized version of what a leo would instinctively seek out after eating to help them digest their food, in much the same way that our gut-loaded vitamin-dusted feeders are idealized versions of what they would hunt down to eat.



Re: Bruminating, that's a bit of a grey area to me. Leos in the wild can and do go pretty long stretches without food, and some do the same in captivity (mine won't go near food for about a week when going into/coming out of shed, many breeders bruminate to get a better handle on the start of the breeding season).

The fat reserves in their tails exist so they can survive just such a situation, and for me at least the concern over fatty liver is a secondary one: If the animal isn't wasting away the condition either won't manifest or will be mild and reverse when they start eating again. Based on that short periods of fasting, especially ones that involve other conditions to slow the leo's metabolism, seem safe to me.

All that said, I've got no intention of breeding so the benefits/risks of bruminating leos are purely academic for me

 

[nats]

Why would they be designed to live in theese conditions just to die young? I believe that in the wild some animals are picked off by natural selection, and the rest live normal lives. Also why would they be capable of living 15 - 20 years if they "don't" live that long in the wild just because they don't get enough heat at night? Why would they live there if the conditions don't support them? They would have died out long ago if that were the case.

I don't mean to sound rude but I've seen this posted before and didn't get a chance to speak so it's been on my mind.

I think in the wild, they only need to live long enough to successfully breed.

I would also think that if they lived only 2 years in the wild, they would be a thriving species.

Leos could also be a species that is still evolving. No one seems to know that much about them in the wild.

For sure, in captivity they live longer for obvious reasons.

 

[leonut]

Leos in the wild face a lot of extra problems that limit their lifespan (mostly being declared a midnight snack by predators), but their nutrition is definitely sub-par compared to what our spoiled captive leos get. They may go days or weeks without being able to find food, and when they do there might not be a convenient warm rock to sit on to digest.

I'm pretty sure it's not an "Oh no! There goes the species!" tragedy, since otherwise they would have died out and we wouldn't have had any to catch and make into pets, but it's definitely a contributing factor to their shorter lifespan in the wild.

I'm not talking about predators though. sure there's plenty of predators in pakistan and india, my question is, why would they live there if conditions don't suport them? "when there might not be a convenient warm rock to sit on to digest." well, when this happens on a regular basis, thats when they brumate. how is their nutrition "sub-par" when most geckos from the wild are as healthy as captive geckos? sure they have parasites but in the wild they barley affect them.

 

[Bennayboi]

Why would they be designed to live in theese conditions just to die young? I believe that in the wild some animals are picked off by natural selection, and the rest live normal lives. Also why would they be capable of living 15 - 20 years if they "don't" live that long in the wild just because they don't get enough heat at night? Why would they live there if the conditions don't support them? They would have died out long ago if that were the case.

I don't mean to sound rude but I've seen this posted before and didn't get a chance to speak so it's been on my mind.

Predators, malnutrition, lack of proper heat, stressful conditions, parasites, infections etc. is why they dont live "too" long. Leos are fairly low on the food chain. Their conditions support them long enough to successfully breed. Leos arent required to live 20 years to thrive in the wild.

 

[leonut]

I think in the wild, they only need to live long enough to successfully breed.

Sure but does that mean as soon as they breed they just go off and die?

I would also think that if they lived only 2 years in the wild, they would be a thriving species.

I think that at leat some live longer than 2 years.

Leos could also be a species that is still evolving. No one seems to know that much about them in the wild.

I don't see how that aplies here.

For sure, in captivity they live longer for obvious reasons.

of course. but don't you think they are capable of living long lives in the wild too?

 

[fallen_angel]

I have thought about (a) before and believe that overhead lighting isn't necessarily detrimental to them at all (as long as the temps are right) since they would only be getting overhead lighting out in the wild. We currently have one tank with a UTH, but we got it because the gecko is albino and would really hate the light. Most of our tanks have overhead heating and we haven't had any problems with it at all *knock on wood*. They thrive and live very well, and don't seem to be bothered by the light.

 

[GatorGirl286]

you have to approach this from a biology point of view, leonut. i see by your info under your avatar that you are just 13 (not saying that is bad) so you have not been exposed to any relevant biology classes at this point i presume. evolution most certainly applies in this discussion. if what nats says is true, and leos are still evolving (which i'm sure they are....aren't we all technically continuously evolving?) then they're genetics and adaptive capabilities are still trying to catch up with their environment, but at the same time, they are good enough to allow them to thrive (and by thrive i mean carry on the species). no one is saying that as soon as a leo reproduces, it goes off and dies. natural selection says that those leos best at surviving in their environment will live to carry on the species. that doesnt mean they drop dead once they do, it means their life span is long enough to include the stage of sexual maturity and they will take advantage of that as long as they are alive.

i think, also, that you are assuming that we are saying that leos' natural environment over in pakistan, india, etc doesn't support them. it DOES support them. the fact that they have limited heat, food, predators, and don't live as long, is just part of nature. every single organism on this planet struggles for food, shelter, reproduction and would probably live longer if provided all the best of these necessities. so would you then say that all of those organisms arent supported by their environment?

a few examples:
killer whales for instance: orca's have longer life expectancies in the wild vs. captivity. so you can see that it is different for every animal. for orca's - nature is best.

look at humans: back when we had to hunt and forage for food, the human life expectancy was very short, but it obviously was long enough to allow for reproduction. but now we are provided with excellent health care, better nutrition, and we can control our environment (indoors). that doesnt mean the earth back then couldnt support us, it was just a little harsher and tougher to survive.

and then look at sharks: they havent evolved for many many many years. they are practically perfect organisms who survive to excellent potential in their wild environment.

of course. but don't you think they are capable of living long lives in the wild too?

depends on what you mean by "long". geckos can live even up to 20 years in captivity. do i think they can live that long in the wild? no i do not.

anyways, just thought i would put my education to good use and throw some ideas into this discussion. i know it doesnt directly answer the poster's questions but i think it makes for good discussion i love biology!

oh, i do have one thought on the fatty liver disease topic. i think everyone agrees so far that geckos in the wild dont eat as much or as frequently as they do with us. sooo... wild leos would have fewer fat stores to mobilize during periods of starvation which might contribute less to lipidosis of the liver? also, perhaps a wild leo's metabolism is quite a bit slower than our captive bred leos, allowing for toleration of longer periods of starvation? just a thought.

woo that was a long post. haha.

 

[leonut]

I have thought about (a) before and believe that overhead lighting isn't necessarily detrimental to them at all (as long as the temps are right) since they would only be getting overhead lighting out in the wild. We currently have one tank with a UTH, but we got it because the gecko is albino and would really hate the light. Most of our tanks have overhead heating and we haven't had any problems with it at all *knock on wood*. They thrive and live very well, and don't seem to be bothered by the light.

finaly someone who agrees! lol

 

[leonut]

you have to approach this from a biology point of view, leonut. i see by your info under your avatar that you are just 13 (not saying that is bad)

Just because i'm 13 does not mean i haven't been exposed to this kind of thing.

so you have not been exposed to any relevant biology classes at this point i presume.

Quite the contrary, i'm taking an introductory biology and herpetology course.

evolution most certainly applies in this discussion. if what nats says is true, and leos are still evolving (which i'm sure they are....aren't we all technically continuously evolving?) then they're genetics and adaptive capabilities are still trying to catch up with their environment, but at the same time, they are good enough to allow them to thrive (and by thrive i mean carry on the species).

(I'm just going to say, i'm a bit biased against evolution so i can't effectivley argue againt this without sounding so.)

if you mean adaptivley evolving than yes i belive species minutley adapt to their surrondings. i do not, however belive in trans-species evolution.

no one is saying that as soon as a leo reproduces, it goes off and dies. natural selection says that those leos best at surviving in their environment will live to carry on the species. that doesnt mean they drop dead once they do, it means their life span is long enough to include the stage of sexual maturity and they will take advantage of that as long as they are alive.

I do admit, i wasn't really thinking about it there. What i mean is, i do believe leopard geckos are smart enogh to survive for quite awhile in the wild.

i think, also, that you are assuming that we are saying that leos' natural environment over in pakistan, india, etc doesn't support them. it DOES support them. the fact that they have limited heat, food, predators, and don't live as long, is just part of nature. every single organism on this planet struggles for food, shelter, reproduction and would probably live longer if provided all the best of these necessities. so would you then say that all of those organisms arent supported by their environment?

Well, it was said;

A leo in the wild would only have a few hours of belly heat after the sun goes down. So their time to soak up belly heat would be very limited. I imagine they dont live too long in the wild.

It was implied that leos die young in the wild because they don't get enough belly heat. maybe i took that to literally...

a few examples:
killer whales for instance: orca's have longer life expectancies in the wild vs. captivity. so you can see that it is different for every animal. for orca's - nature is best.

look at humans: back when we had to hunt and forage for food, the human life expectancy was very short, but it obviously was long enough to allow for reproduction. but now we are provided with excellent health care, better nutrition, and we can control our environment (indoors). that doesnt mean the earth back then couldnt support us, it was just a little harsher and tougher to survive.

Again, lol. I can't effectively answer this without sounding biased.

depends on what you mean by "long". geckos can live even up to 20 years in captivity. do i think they can live that long in the wild? no i do not.

I certainly belive it's possible.

anyways, just thought i would put my education to good use and throw some ideas into this discussion. i know it doesnt directly answer the poster's questions but i think it makes for good discussion i love biology!

I love biology too. I hope this dosn't create any hard feelings. I just thought it would be a good chance to exercise my arguing skills.

(Sorry, long post i know. lol)

 

[lampeye]

Leos do live a long time in captivity, so it's likely they have quite a long lifespan (in comaprison to lizards of similar size) in the wild as well. Since they also have a fairly high reproductive rate, it is likely that recruitment is low. Youngsters are noticeably more delicate in captivity than adults, after all.

It pays to remember that organisms don't necessarily evolve toward "perfectly filling" some ecological niche. There are many species, both plant and animal, that may live in an extreme environment, but show their best growth under conditions markedly different than those they encounter in the wild. A great example would be Euphorbia decaryi, a plant which lives under harsh, semiarid conditions in Madagascar, but which grows best under lower light and higher moisture conditions than found in the wild. Want it to look its best? Grow it like an African violet. Yet even in the wettest of years it might only have those conditions for a few days or weeks. Eublepharids, as a whole, need humidity, yet many modern ones are found in arid or semiarid environments, because they are able to exploit microhabitats that give them the humidity they require. Their ability to find and exploit such refuges allows them to colonize environments other species would avoid.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

By reading some of the responses, I feel that the original post has been taken out of context somewhat. We all know that there is no way we can accurately duplicate the natural environment for any of our reptiles, as well as their natural feeding habits. With leopard geckos for example, there aren't any crickets, mealworms, waxworms, etc. in their natural diet. We do the best we can given limited captive conditions and available resources... not to mention limited information of exactly how leopard geckos in the wild thrive and survive.

In regard to hepatic lipidosis, we are more inclined to see this problem with leopard geckos going into starvation mode and it is extremely rare to have issues with this disease with healthy geckos. There are many reptile species that are more prone to hepatic lipidosis due to a fatty diet, but their bodies are not equipped to store large fat reserves like leopard gecko are.

I think that by providing constant heat in one area of their captive enclosure, we are allowing them to thermoregulate, as Mari said earlier. Objects heat up much faster than they cool off, so perhaps the large granite and limestone rocks and hard-pack clay of the leos natural terrain retains the scorching heat of the day much longer than we know. For example, I have experienced this in the South Eastern deserts here in California when field hunting/collecting desert bandeds at night. When I turn over a rock it's feels warm to the touch, which means that it is hotter than 98.6 degrees (my body temperature).

When the natural daylight hours shorten, and the ambient temperatures go down in the high, mountain deserts of the Middle East, the environment can no longer support the leopard geckos' metabolism, so brumation is induced. During brumation, the gecko's metabolism nearly shuts down to reserve their body's stored resources. So in essence, perhaps the most unnatural thing we do with our geckos is not to brumate them?

I think that given the fact that many of our captive leopard geckos live to well over 10 years, (my vet has had a pair of WC for over 20 years!) tells us that we are providing the best environment possible for them considering our limited understanding and resources of how they are supposed to live.

 

[leonut]

Yeah, sorry for hijacking. In retrospect it's kind a silly argument. well, i guess i'll bail out here.

intersting about the hubandry issues though.

 

[nats]

Yeah, sorry for hijacking. In retrospect it's kind a silly argument. well, i guess i'll bail out here.

intersting about the husbandry issues though.

Maybe not so silly Larry, you stimulated some thought provoking conversation :main_yes: and that's always a good thing.

BTW, I don't know many 13 year olds, but I would say that you are at the top of the intelligence scale for your age group. So are a few other kids on this forum. And I agree with the OP, there ARE allot of contradictions in the
leo husbandry area.

There is much to be learned.

 

[leonut]

Maybe not so silly Larry, you stimulated some thought provoking conversation :main_yes: and that's always a good thing.

BTW, I don't know many 13 year olds, but I would say that you are at the top of the intelligence scale for your age group. So are a few other kids on this forum. And I agree with the OP, there ARE allot of contradictions in the
leo husbandry area.

There is much to be learned.

Thanks. I've taken a few logic courses so i'm sure that helped. I know it probably sounded like i was trolling, but i really wasn't trying to. lol.