Erratum: The role of images of conspecifics as visual cues in the development and behavior of larval anurans (Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (2005) DOI: 10.1007/s00265-005-0133-5);The role of images of conspecifics as visual cues in the development and behavior of larval anurans

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 19-25

  Rot Nikcevic, Irena ^a   Taylor, Christopher N ^a   Wassersug, Richard J ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Behavior; Development; Growth; Tadpoles; Visual Cues

Indexed keywords

AMPHIBIAN; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; GROWTH; HABITAT; LARVAL DEVELOPMENT; PREDATOR;

ANURA; BUFO; BUFO AMERICANUS; RANA SYLVATICA;

EID: 33646472629     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0186-0     Document Type: Erratum

References (31)

1. Arendt JD (2003) Reduced burst speed is a cost of rapid growth in anuran tadpoles: problems of autocorrelation and interferences about growth rates. Funct Ecol 7:328-334
2. Blaustein AR, O'Hara RK (1982) Kin recognition in Rana cascadae tadpoles: maternal and paternal effects. Anim Behav 30:1151-1157
3. Blaustein AR, Waldman B (1992) Kin recognition in anuran amphibians. Anim Behav 44:207-221
4. Blaustein AR, Walls SC (1995) Aggregation and kin recognition. In: Heatwole H, Sullivan BK (eds) Amphibian biology 2, social behaviour. Surrey Beatty, pp 568-602
5. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes in identification. Herpetologica 16:183-190
6. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295-311
7. Hobson ES (1979) Aggregation as a defense against predators in aquatic and terrestrial environments. In: Reese RS, Lighter FJ (eds) Contrasts in behavior. Wiley, New York, pp 219-234
8. Kats LB, Petranka JW, Sih A (1988) Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69:1865-1870
9. Lannoo MJ (1999) Integration: nervous and sensory systems. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 149-169
10. Licht LE (1967) Growth inhibition in crowded tadpoles: intraspecific and interspecific effects. Ecology 48:736-745
11. Petranka JW, Kats LB, Sih A (1987) Predator-prey interaction among fish and larval amphibians: use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish. Anim Behav 35:420-425
12. Relyea RA (2001) The lasting effects of adaptive plasticity: predator-induced tadpoles become long-legged frogs. Ecology 82:1947-1955
13. Relyea RA (2002) Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol Monogr 72:523-540
14. Relyea RA, Hoverman JT (2003) The impact of larval predators and competitors on the morphology and fitness of juvenile tree frogs. Oecologia 134:596-604
15. Relyea RA, Werner EE (2000) Morphological plasticity of four larval anurans distributed along an environmental gradient. Copeia 2000:178-190
16. Rennie MD, Collins NC, Shuter BJ, Rajotte JW, Couture P (2005) A comparison of methods for estimating activity costs of wild fish populations: more active fish observed to grow slower. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:767-780
17. Rot-Nikcevic I, Denver RJ, Wassersug RJ (2005) The influence of visual and tactile stimulation on growth and metamorphosis in anuran larvae. Funct Ecol (in press)
18. SAS Institute (2001) SAS/STAT version 8.2. SAS Institute, Cary
19. Semlitsch RD, Caldwell JP (1982) Effects of density on growth, metamorphosis, and survivorship in tadpoles of Scaphiopus holbrooki. Ecology 63:905-911
20. Semlitsch RD, Reyer HU (1992) Modification of anti-predator behaviour in tadpoles by environmental conditioning. J Anim Ecol 61:353-360
21. Smith DC, Van Buskirk J (1995) Phenotypic design, plasticity, and ecological performance in two tadpole species. Am Nat 145:211-233
22. Smith-Gill SJ, Berven KA (1979) Predicting amphibian metamorphosis. Am Nat 113:563-585
23. StatSoft (1997) STATISTICA for Windows, version 5.0. StatSoft, Tulsa
24. vS. Hoff K (1988) Evasive maneuvers of tadpoles and frogs in complex environments. Am Zool 28:155A
25. vS. Hoff K, Blaustein AR, McDiarmid RW, Altig R (1999) Behavior: Interactions and their consequences. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 215-239
26. Waldman B (1982) Sibling association among schooling toad tadpoles: field evidence and implications. Anim Behav 30:700-713
27. Waldman B (1986) Chemical ecology of kin recognition in anuran amphibians. In: Duvall D, Muller-Schwarze D, Silverstein RM (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates 4. Plenum, New York, pp 225-242
28. Wassersug RJ (1973) Aspects of social behavior in anuran larvae. In: Vial JH (ed) Evolutionary biology of the anurans. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, pp 273-297
29. Wassersug RJ, Hessler CM (1971) Tadpole behaviour: aggregation in larval Xenopus laevis. Anim Behav 19:386-389
30. Wassersug RJ, Lum AM, Potel MJ (1981) An analysis of school structure for tadpoles (Anura: Amphibia). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:15-22
31. Wilbur HM, Collins JP (1973) Ecological aspects of amphibian metamorphosis. Science 182:1305-1314