) for L. etheridgei (Figure 3).
 
In El Simbral, there was no positive selection (Wi ± CI 95% > 1) for any of the microhabitats; however, there was negative selection for Polylepis trees (Wi ± CI 95% < 1). We did not detect any selection processes for non thorny bushes, rocks, scrubland, small rocks, thorny bushes or uncovered land (Table 1). In Tuctumpaya, we did not detect a positive selection, yet there was negative selection for Polylepis trees and non thorny bushes (Wi ± CI 95% < 1). There was no selection for rocks, scrubland, small rocks, thorny bushes or uncovered land (Table 1). Manly’s standardised selection indices for small rocks, thorny bushes, Polylepis trees, and non thorny bushes were higher in El Simbral; whereas the Tuctumpaya population showed a higher selection probability for uncovered land and rocks (Figure 3).
 
Daily activity pattern
We found that L. etheridgei had a bimodal daily activity pattern, with one activity spike between 9:00 and 10:59 h and another between 13:00 and 13:59 h (Figure 4). Liolaemus etheridgei was also active at different times between sites, showing activity between 9:00 and 15:59h in El Simbral and between 8:00 and 17:59h in Tuctumpaya (Figure 4). The probability density functions revealed a tendency for a bimodal activity pattern in El Simbral, with one spike between 9:00 and 10:59h and another between 13:00 and 13:59h. The bimodal pattern was less evident in Tuctumpaya, where there was one activity peak between 9:00 and 10:59h and another between 15:00 and 15:59h. In both cases, there was a drop in activity between 11:00 and 11:59 h (Figure 4).
 
We did not find differences in the abundances of active and inactive individuals at different hours of the day for either the El Simbral (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, N = 10, V = 21, P = 0.906) or Tuctumpaya populations (Wilcoxon signed rank test, N = 10, V = 30, P = 0.105). Populations from El Simbral and Tuctumpaya did not differ in their abundances of active (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, N = 20, V = 22, P = 0.61) or inactive (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, N = 20, V = 33, P = 0.61) individuals throughout the day.
 
Diet
The trophic niche breadth of L. etheridgei was 0.128. According to the IRI index, we found that Lygaeidae is the most important animalian dietary item for L. etheridgei in the Polylepis forests, being classified as a “Secondary” prey (% IRI: 75% > 55.3% > 50%). All other items fell into the category of “Accidental” (%IRI < 25%). Due to the weight of plant material, L. etheridgei was found to be herbivorous (%W Plant material: 66.373, > 51%). In addition, prey selection was found (