The effect of group size on the responses of Wood Frog tadpoles to fish

American Midland Naturalist

Volumn 158, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 79-84

  Awan, Aqil R ^a   Smith, Geoffrey R ^a  

^a DENISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FROG; GROUP SIZE; PERCIFORM; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION;

ANURA; LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS; RANA SYLVATICA;

EID: 34547790735     PISSN: 00030031     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031(2007)158[79:TEOGSO]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. ANHOLT, B. R., S. NEGOVETIC, C. RAUTER AND C. SOM. 2005. Predator complement determines the relative success of tadpoles of the Rana esculenta complex. Evol. Ecol. Res., 7:733-741.
2. AWAN, A. R. AND G. R. SMITH, MS. The effect of group size on the activity of leopard frog (Rana pipiens) tadoles. J. Freshw. Ecol., in press.
3. BABBITT, K. J. AND F. JORDAN. 1996. Predation on Bufo terrestris tadpoles: effects of cover and predator identity. Copeia, 1996:485-488.
4. _ AND G. W. TANNER. 1997. Effects of cover and predator identity on predation of Hyla squirella tadpoles. J. Herpetol., 31:128-130.
5. BABER, M. J. AND K. J. BABBITT. 2004. Influence of habitat complexity on predator-prey interactions between the fish (Gambusia holbrooki) and tadpoles of Hyla squirella and Gastrophryne carolinensis. Copeia, 2004:173-177.
6. BANKS, P. B. 2001. Predation-sensitive grouping and habitat use by eastern grey kangaroos: a field experiment. Anim. Behav., 61:1013-1021.
7. BIESTERFELDT, J. M., J. W. PETRANKA AND S. SHERBOUDY. 1993. Prevalence of chemical interference competition in natural populations of wood frogs, Rana sylvatica. Copeia, 1993:688-695.
8. BLUMSTEIN, D. T., J. C. DANIEL AND C. S. EVANS. 2001. Yellow-footed rock-wallaby group size effects reflect a trade-off. Ethology, 107:655-664.
9. BOHLIN, T. AND J. I. JOHNSSON. 2004. A model of foraging activity and group size: can the relative importance of predation risk dilution and competition be evaluated experimentally?. Anim. Behav., 68:F1-F5.
10. BULL, E. L. AND D. B. MARX. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high elevation lakes in northeastern Oregon. NW Sri., 76:240-248.
11. BUTLER, M. J., IV. 1988. In situ observations of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Raf.) foraging behavior: the effects of habitat complexity, group size, and predators. Copeia, 1988:939-944.
12. DOWNES, S. AND A. M. HOEFER. 2004. Antipredatory behaviour in lizards: interactions between group size and predation risk. Anim. Behav., 67:485-492.
13. FAIRBANKS, B. AND F. S. DOBSON. 2007. Mechanisms of the group-size effect on vigilance in Columbian ground squirrels: dilution versus detection. Anim. Behav., 73:115-123.
14. FORMANOWICZ, D. R., JR. AND M. S. BOBKA. 1989. Predation risk and microhabitat preference: an experimental study of the behavioral responses of prey and predators. Am. Midl. Nat., 121:379-386.
15. GOLDEN, D. R., G. R. SMITH AND J. E. RETTIG. 2000. Effects of age and group size on habitat selection and activity level in Xenopus laevis tadpoles. Trans. NE Acad. Sci., 26:23-27.
16. _ AND _. 2001. Effects of age and group size on habitat selection and activity level in Rana pipiens-tadpoles. Herpetol. J., 11:69-73.
17. GRAND, T. C. AND L. M. DILL. 1999. The effect of group size on the foraging behaviour of juvenile coho salmon: reduction of predation risk or increased competition? Anim. Behav., 58:443-451.
18. GRIFFITHS, R. A. AND J. P. FOSTER. 1998. The effect of social interactions on tadpole activity and growth in the British anuran amphibians (Bufo bufo, B. calamita, and Rana temporaria). J. Zool., 245:431-437.
19. HEWS, D. K. 1995. Overall predator feeding rates and relative susceptibility of large and small tadpoles to fish predation depend on microhabitat: a laboratory study. J. Herpetol., 29:142-145.
20. HORAT, P. AND R. D. SEMLITSCH. 1994. Effects of predation risk and hunger on the behaviour of two species of tadpoles. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 34:393-401.
21. KOPP, K., M. WACHLEVSKI AND P. C. ETEROVICK. 2006. Environmental complexity reduces tadpole predation by water bugs. Can. J. Zool., 84:136-140.
22. LAURILA, A. 2000. Behavioural responses to predator chemical cues and local variation in antipredator performance in Rana temporaria tadpoles. Oikos, 88:159-168.
23. LAWLER, S. P. 1989. Behavioral responses to predators and predation risk in four species of larval anurans. Anim. Behav., 38:1039-1047.
24. LEFCORT, H. 1996. Adaptive, chemically mediated fright response in tadpoles of the southern leopard frog, Rana utricularia. Copeia, 1996:455-459.
25. MANTEIFEL, Y. 1995. Chemically-mediated avoidance of predators by Rana temporaria tadpoles. J. Herpetol., 29:461-463.
26. NICIEZA, A. G. 1999. Context-dependent aggregation in common frog Rana temporaria tadpoles: influence of developmental stage, predation risk and social environment. Funct. Ecol., 13:852-858.
27. PARRIS, M. J., E. REESE AND A. STORFER. 2006. Antipredator behavior of chytridiomycosis-infected northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) tadpoles. Can. J. Zool., 84:58-65.
28. PEACOR, S. D. 2003. Phenotypic modifications to conspecific density arising from predation risk assessment. Oikos, 100:409-415.
29. RELYEA, R. A. 2002. Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: Consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol. Monogr., 72:523-540.
30. _. 2004. Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology, 85:172-179.
31. _ AND E. E. WERNER. 1999. Quantifying the relation between predator-induced behavior and growth performance in larval anurans. Ecology, 80:2117-2124.
32. RICHARDSON, J. M. L. 2001. A comparative study of activity levels in larval anurans and response to the presence of different predators. Behav. Ecol., 72:51-58.
33. ROBERTS, G. 1996. Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim. Behav., 51:1077-1086.
34. SKELLY, D. K. AND E. E. WERNER. 1990. Behavioral and life-historical responses of larval American toads to an odonate predator. Ecology, 71:2313-2322.
35. SMITH, G. R., J. E. RETTIG, G. G. MITTELBACH, J. L. VALIULIS AND S. R. SCHAAK. 1999. The effects of fish on assemblages of amphibians in ponds: a field experiment. Freshwater Biol., 41:829-837.
36. SPIELER, M. 2003. Risk of predation affects aggregation size: a study with tadpoles of Phrynomantis microps (Anura: Microhylidae). Anim. Behav., 65:179-184.
37. _. 2005. Can aggregation behaviour of Phrynomantis microps tadpoles reduce predation risk?. Herpetol. J., 15:153-157.
38. STAUFFER, H.-P. AND R. D. SEMLITSCH. 1993. Effects of visual, chemical and tactile cues of fish on the behavioural responses of tadpoles. Anim. Behav., 46:355-364.
39. SWART, C. C. AND R. C. TAYLOR. 2004. Behavioral interactions between the giant water bug (Belostoma lutarium) and tadpoles of Bufo woodhousii Southeast. Nat., 3:13-24.
40. TEPLITSKY, G. S. PLÉNET AND P. JOLY. 2003. Tadpoles' responses to risk of fish introduction. Oecologia, 134:270-277.
41. TREVES, A. 2000. Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. Anim. Behav., 60:711-722.
42. WATT, P. J., S. F. NOTTINGHAM AND S. YOUNG. 1997. Toad tadpole aggregation behaviour evidence for a predator avoidance function. Anim. Behav., 54:865-872.