Multiple inducible defences against multiple predators in the anuran tadpole, Rana pirica

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 619-631

  Kishida, Osamu ^a   Nishimura, Kinya ^a  

^a HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cue; Induced defence; Morphology; Phenotypic plasticity; Polymorphism

Indexed keywords

AESHNA; AMPHIUMA MEANS; ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); ANURA; HYNOBIUS RETARDATUS; RANA PIRICA;

EID: 20444440719     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adler, F.R. and Harvell, C.D. 1990. Inducible defences, phenotypic variability and biotic environments. Trends Ecol. Evol., 5: 407-410.
2. Clark, C.W. and Harvell, C.D. 1992. Inducible defences and the allocation of resources: a minimal model. Am. Nat., 139: 521-539.
3. DeWitt, T.J. 1998. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity: tests with predator-induced morphology and life history in a freshwater snail. J. Evol. Biol., 11: 465-480.
4. DeWitt, T.J., Robinson, B.W. and Wilson, D.S. 2000. Functional diversity among predators of a freshwater snail imposes an adaptive trade-off for shell morphology. Evol. Ecol. Res., 2: 129-148.
5. Dodson, S.I. 1989. The ecological role of chemical stimuli for the zooplankton: predator-induced morphology in Daphnia. Oecologia, 78: 361-367.
6. Havel, J.E. 1987. Predator-induced defences: a review. In Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities (W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih, eds.), pp. 263-278. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
7. Kishida, O. and Nishimura, K. 2004. Bulgy tadpoles: inducible defence morph. Oecologia, 140: 414-421.
8. Lardner, B. 1998. Plasticity or fixed adaptive traits? Strategies for predation avoidance in Rana arvalis tadpoles. Oecologia, 117: 119-126.
9. LaFiandra, E.M. and Babbitt, K.J. 2004. Predator induced phenotypic plasticity in the pinewoods tree frog, Hyla femoralis: necessary cues and the cost of development. Oecologia, 138: 350-359.
10. Laurila, A., Crochet, P.A. and Merila, J. 2001. Predation-induced effects on hatchling morphology in the common frog (Rana temporaria). Can. J. Zool., 79: 926-930.
11. Laurila, A., Pakkasmaa, S., Crochet, P.A. and Merila, J. 2002. Predator-induced plasticity in early life history and morphology in two anuran amphibians. Oecologia, 132: 524-530.
12. Lively, C.M. 1986. Canalization versus developmental conversion in a spatially variable environment. Am. Nat., 128: 561-572.
13. Lloyd, D.G. 1984. Variation strategies of plants in heterogeneous environments. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 27: 357-385
14. McCollum, S.A. and Leimberger, J.D. 1997. Predator-induced morphological changes in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affects tadpole shape and color. Oecologia, 109: 615-621.
15. McCollum, S.A. and Van Buskirk, J. 1996. Costs and benefits of a predator-induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution, 50: 583-593.
16. Michimae, H. and Wakahara, M. 2002. A tadpole-induced polyphenism in the salamander Hynobius retardatus. Evolution, 56: 2029-2038
17. Moran, N. 1992. The evolutionary maintenance of alternative phenotypes. Am. Nat., 139: 971-989.
18. Poitrineau, K., Brown, S.P. and Hochberg, M.E. 2003. Defence against multiple enemies. J. Evol. Biol., 16: 1319-1327.
19. Relyea, R.A. 2001. Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology, 82: 523-540.
20. Sato, T. 1990. Breeding sites of a salamander, Hynobius retardatus (in Japanese with English abstract). Bull. Obihiro Centennial City Museum, 8: 1-10.
21. Sih, A., Englund, G. and Wooster, D. 1998. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13: 350-355.
22. Thompson, J.N. 1998. Coping with multiple enemies: 10 years of attack on Lomatium dissectum plants. Ecology, 79: 2550-2554.
23. Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C.D. 1999. The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
24. Van Buskirk, J. 2001. Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvae. J. Evol. Biol., 14: 482-489.
25. Van Buskirk, J. 2002. A comparative test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: relationship between habitat and phenotype in anuran larvae. Am. Nat., 160: 87-102.
26. Van Buskirk, J. and Arioli, M. 2002. Dosage response of an induced defence: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology, 83: 1580-1585.
27. Van Buskirk, J. and McCollum, S.A. 1999. Plasticity and selection explain variation in tadpole phenotype between ponds with different predator composition. Oikos, 85: 31-39.
28. Van Buskirk, J. and McCollum, S.A. 2000a. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. J. Evol. Biol., 13: 336-347.
29. Van Buskirk, J. and McCollum, S.A. 2000b. Influence of tail shape on tadpole swimming performance. J. Exp. Biol., 203: 2149-2158.
30. Van Buskirk, J. and Schmidt, B.R. 2000. Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in larval newts: trade-offs, selection, and variation in nature. Ecology, 81: 3009-3028.
31. Van Tienderen, P.H. 1997. Generalists, specialists, and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in sympatric populations of distinct species. Evolution, 51: 1372-1380.