Potential of prey size and type to affect foraging asymmetries in tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum) larvae

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 81, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 1726-1735

  Johnson, Eric B ^a,b,d   Bierzychudek, Paulette ^a   Whiteman, Howard H ^b,c  

^a LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE   (United States)

^b ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; LIVING SYSTEMS STUDIES;

POPULATION DYNAMICS;

BIODIVERSITY;

FOOD AVAILABILITY; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; PREY SIZE;

AMBYSTOMA; AMBYSTOMA TIGRINUM; AMBYSTOMA TIGRINUM NEBULOSUM; AMPHIBIA; AMPHIUMA MEANS; CAUDATA; EPHEMEROPTERA; PANTHERA TIGRIS; REPTILIA; ZYGOPTERA;

EID: 0347723884     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/z03-170     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anderson, M.T., Kiesecker, J.M., Chivers, D.P., and Blaustein, A.R. 2001. The direct and indirect effects of temperature on a predator-prey relationship. Can. J. Zool. 79: 1834-1841.
2. Brown, J.L. 1964. The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems. Wilson Bull. No. 76. pp. 160-169.
3. Brunkow, P.E., and Collins, J.P. 1996. Effects of individual variation in size on growth and development of larval salamanders. Ecology, 77: 1483-1492.
4. Brunkow, P.E., and Collins, J.P. 1998. Group size structure affects patterns of aggression in larval salamanders. Behav. Ecol. 9: 508-514.
5. Case, T.J., and Gilpin, M.E. 1974. Interference competition and niche theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71: 3073-3077.
6. Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. 2nd ed. Sinauer Inc., Sunderland, Mass.
7. Claessen, D., De Roos, A.M., and Persson, L. 2000. Dwarfs and giants - cannibalism and competition in size-structured populations. Am. Nat. 155: 219-237.
8. De Roos, A.M., and Persson, L. 2001. Physiologically structured models - from versatile technique to ecological theory. Oikos, 94: 51-71.
9. Dodson, S.I., and Dodson, V.E. 1971. The diet of Ambystoma tigrinum larvae from western Colorado. Copeia, 1971: 614-624.
10. Faragher, S.G., and Jaeger, R.G. 1998. Tadpole bullies: examining mechanisms of competition in a community of larval anurans. Can. J. Zool. 76: 144-153.
11. Goldberg, D.E. 1996. Simplifying the study of competition at the individual plant level: consequences of distinguishing between competitive effect and response for forest vegetation management. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 26: 19-38.
12. Grant, J.W.A. 1993. Whether or not to defend. The influences of resource distribution. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 23: 137-153.
13. Hambright, K.D. 1991. Experimental analysis of prey selection by largemouth bass: role of predator mouth width and prey body depth. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120: 500-508.
14. Hokit, D.G., Walls, S.C., and Blaustein, A.R. 1996. Context-dependent kin discrimination in larvae of the marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum. Anim. Behav. 52: 17-31.
15. Holway, D.A. 1999. Competitive mechanisms underlying the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argentine ant. Ecology, 80: 238-251.
16. Kiesecker, J.M., Blaustein, A.R., and Miller, C.L. 2001. Potential mechanisms underlying the displacement of native red-legged frogs by introduced bullfrogs. Ecology, 82: 1964-1970.
17. Leff, L.G., and Bachmann, M.D. 1986. Ontogenetic changes in predatory behavior of larval tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum). Can. J. Zool. 64: 1337-1344.
18. Loeb, M.L.G., Collins, J.P., and Maret, T.J. 1994. The role of prey in controlling expression of a trophic polymorphism in Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum. Funct. Ecol. 8: 151-158.
19. Lomnicki, A. 1988. Population ecology of individuals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
20. Maret, T.J., and Collins, J.P. 1994. Individual responses to population size structure: the role of size variation in controlling expression of a trophic polyphenism. Oecologia, 100: 279-285.
21. Maret, T.J., and Collins, J.P. 1996. Effect of prey vulnerability on population size structure of a gape-limited predator. Ecology, 77: 320-324.
22. Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass.
23. Nilsson, P.A., and Bronmark, C. 2000. Prey vulnerability to a gape-size limited predator: behavioural and morphological impacts on northern pike piscivory. Oikos, 88: 539-546.
24. Olson, M.H. 1996. Predator-prey interactions in size-structured fish communities: implications of prey growth. Oecologia, 108: 757-763.
25. Paine, R.T. 1976. Size-limited predation: an observational and experimental approach with the Mytilus-Pisaster interaction. Ecology, 57: 858-873.
26. Persson, A., and Bronmark, C. 2002. Foraging capacities and effects of competitive release on ontogenetic diet shift in bream, Abramis brama. Oikos, 97: 271-281.
27. Persson, L. 1985. Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am. Nat. 126: 261-266.
28. Polis, G.A. 1988. Exploitation competition and the evolution of interference, cannibalism, and intraguild predation in age/size-structured populations. In Size-structured populations. Edited by B. Ebenman and L. Persson. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 185-202.
29. Polis, G.A., Myers, C.A., and Holt, R.D. 1989. The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 297-330.
30. Schoener, T.W. 1986. Mechanistic approaches to community ecology: a new reductionism. Am. Zool. 26: 81-106.
31. Semlitsch, R.D., and Reichling, S.B. 1989. Density-dependent injury in larval salamanders. Oecologia, 81: 100-103.
32. Smith, C.K. 1990. Effects of variation in body size on intraspecific competition among larval salamanders. Ecology, 71: 1777-1788.
33. Smith, C.K., and Petranka, J.W. 1987. Prey size-distribution and size-specific foraging success of Ambystoma larvae. Oecologia, 71: 239-244.
34. Sommer, U., Meusel, B., and Stielau, C. 1999. An experimental analysis of the importance of body-size in the seastar-mussel predator-prey relationship. Acta Oecol. 20: 81-86.
35. SPSS Inc. 2000. SPSS. Version 10.1.0 [computer program]. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill.
36. Tilman, D. 1985. The resource ratio hypothesis of succession. Am. Nat. 125: 827-852.
37. Van Buskirk, J., and Smith, D.C. 1991. Density-dependent population regulation in a salamander. Ecology, 72: 1747-1756.
38. Walls, S.C. 1996. Differences in foraging behaviour explain interspecific growth inhibition in competing salamanders. Anim. Behav. 52: 1157-1162.
39. Walls, S.C., and Jaeger, R.G. 1987. Aggression and exploitation as mechanisms of competition in larval salamanders. Can. J. Zool. 65: 2938-2944.
40. Walls, S.C., and Roudebush, R.E. 1991. Reduced aggression toward siblings as evidence of kin recognition in cannibalistic salamanders. Am. Nat. 138: 1027-1038.
41. Walls, S.C., and Semlitsch, R.D. 1991. Visual and movement displays function as agonistic behavior in larval salamanders. Copeia, 1991: 946-942.
42. Werner, E.E., and Gilliam, J.F. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393-425.
43. Whiteman, H.H., Sheen, J.P., Johnson, E.B., Vandeusen, A., Cargille, R., and Sacco, T.W. 2003. Heterospecific prey and trophic polyphenism in larval tiger salamanders. Copeia, 2003: 56-67.
44. Wissinger, S.A. 1992. Niche overlap and the potential for competition and intraguild predation between size-structured populations. Ecology, 73: 1431-1444.
45. Zaret, T.M. 1980. Predation and freshwater communities. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
46. Ziemba, R.E., and Collins, J.P. 1999. Development of size structure in tiger salamanders: the role of intraspecific interference. Oecologia, 120: 524-529.
47. Ziemba, R.E., Myers, M.T., and Collins, J.P. 2000. Foraging under the risk of cannibalism leads to divergence in body size among tiger salamander larvae. Oecologia, 124: 225-231.