Flexible defense strategies: Competition modifies investment in behavioral vs. morphological defenses

Ecology

Volumn 88, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1641-1646

  Teplitsky, Céline ^a,b   Laurila, Anssi ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Competition; Costs; Inducible defenses; Phenotypic plasticity; Predation; Tadpole

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; DRAGONFLY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; FROG; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; JUVENILE; LARVA; MORPHOLOGY; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY;

AESHNA; ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); ANURA; RANA TEMPORARIA;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FROG; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HISTOLOGY; LARVA; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; LARVA; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RANA TEMPORARIA;

EID: 34548449909     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/06-1703.1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abrams, P. A. 1991a. Life history and the relationship between food availability and foraging effort. Ecology 72:1242-1252.
2. Abrams, P. A. 1991b. Strengths of indirect effects generated by optimal foraging. Oikos 62:167-176.
3. Abrams, P. A., and X. Chen. 2002. The evolution of traits affecting resource acquisition and predator vulnerability: Character displacement under real and apparent competition. American Naturalist 160:692-704.
4. Abrams, P. A., and M. Vos. 2003. Adaptation, density dependence and the responses of trophic level abundances to mortality. Evolutionary Ecology Research 5:1113-1132.
5. Anholt, B. R., and E. E. Werner. 1995. Interaction between food availability and predation mortality mediated by adaptive behavior. Ecology 76:2230-2234.
6. Anholt, B. R., and E. E. Werner. 1998. Predictable changes in predation mortality as a consequence of changes in food availability and predation risk. Evolutionary Ecology 12:729-738.
7. Bolnick, D. I., and E. L. Preisser. 2005. Resource competition modifies the strength of trait-mediated predator-prey interactions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 86:2771-2779.
8. Cipollini, D. 2004. Stretching the limits of plasticity: can a plant defend against both competitors and herbivores? Ecology 85:28-37.
9. Dayton, G. H., D. Saenz, K. A. Baum, R. B. Langerhans, and T. J. DeWitt. 2005. Body shape, burst speed and escape behavior of larval anurans. Oikos 111:582-591.
10. DeWitt, T. J., A. Sih, and J. A. Hucko. 1999. Trait compensation and cospecialisation in a freshwater snail: size, shape and antipredator behaviour. Animal Behavior 58:397-407.
11. Gasc, J. P., et al. 1997. Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Societas Europeae Herpetologia and Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (IEGB/SPN), Paris, France.
12. Gosner, K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183-190.
13. Gurevitch, J., J. A. Morrison, and L. A. Hedges. 2000. The interaction between competition and predation: a meta-analysis of field experiments. American Naturalist 155:435-453.
14. Harvell, C. D. 1990. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Quarterly Review of Biology 65:323-340.
15. Herms, D. A., and W. J. Mattson. 1992. The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Quarterly Review of Biology 67:283-335.
16. Hoverman, J. T., J. R. Auld, and R. A. Relyea. 2005. Putting prey back together again: integrating predator-induced behavior, morphology, and life history. Oecologia 144:481-491.
17. Huber, H., N. C. Kane, M. S. Heschel, E. J. von Wettberg, J. Banta, A. M. Leuck, and J. Schmitt. 2004. Frequency and microenvironmental pattern of selection on plastic shade-avoidance traits in a natural population of Impatiens capensis. American Naturalist 163:548-563.
18. Koperski, P. 1998. Predator-prey interactions between larval damselflies and mining larvae of Glyptotendipes gripekoveni (Chironomidae): reduction in feeding activity as an induced defence. Freshwater Biology 39:317-324.
19. Lardner, B. 2000. Morphological and life history response to predators in larvae of seven anurans. Oikos 88:169-180.
20. Laurila, A., M. Järvi-Laturi, S. Pakkasmaa, and J. Merilä. 2004. Temporal variation in predation risk: stage-dependency, graded responses and fitness costs in tadpole antipredator defences. Oikos 107:90-99.
21. Laurila, A., J. Kujasalo, and E. Ranta. 1998. Predator-induced changes in life history in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Oikos 83:307-317.
22. Lima, S. L., and L. M. Dill. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:619-640.
23. Luttbeg, B., L. Rowe, and M. Mangel. 2003. Prey state and experimental design affect relative size of trait- and density-mediated indirect effects. Ecology 84:1140-1150.
24. Mangel, M., and C. W. Clark. 1988. Dynamic modeling in behavioral ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
25. McCollum, S. A., and J. D. Leimberger. 1997. Predator-induced morphological change in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affects tadpole shape and color. Oecologia 109:615-621.
26. McNamara, J. M., and A. I. Houston. 1987. Starvation and predation as factors limiting population size. Ecology 68:1515-1519.
27. Miner, B., S. E. Sultan, S. G. Morgan, D. K. Padilla, and R. A. Relyea. 2005. Ecological consequences of phenotypic plasticity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:685-692.
28. Parejko, K., and S. I. Dodson. 1991. The evolutionary ecology of an antipredator reaction norm: Daphnia pulex and Chaoborus americanus. Evolution 45:1665-1674.
29. Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. M. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
30. Pigliucci, M. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:481-486.
31. Relyea, R. A. 2001. Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523-540.
32. Relyea, R. A. 2002. Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecological Monographs 72:523-540.
33. Relyea, R. A. 2004. Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85:172-179.
34. Relyea, R. A., and J. T. Hoverman. 2003. The impact of larval predators and competitors on the morphology and fitness of juvenile treefrogs. Oecologia 134:596-604.
35. Relyea, R. A., and E. E. Werner. 2000. Morphological plasticity in four larval anurans distributed along an environmental gradient. Copeia 2000:178-190.
36. Skelly, D. K. 1994. Activity level and the susceptibility of anuran larvae to predation. Animal Behavior 48:465-468.
37. Stearns, S. C. 1989. The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. BioScience 39:436-251.
38. Steiner, U., and T. Pfeiffer. 2007. Optimizing time and resource allocation trade-offs for investment into morphological and behavioral defense. American Naturalist 169:118-129.
39. Teplitsky, C., H. Piha, A. Laurila, and J. Merilä. 2005a. Common pesticide increases costs of antipredator defenses in Rana temporaria tadpoles. Environmental Science and Technology 39:6079-6085.
40. Teplitsky, C., S. Plénet, and P. Joly. 2004. Hierarchical responses of tadpoles to multiple predators. Ecology 85:2888-2894.
41. Teplitsky, C., S. Plénet, and P. Joly. 2005b. Costs and limits of dosage response to predation risk: To what extent can tadpoles invest in antipredator morphology? Oecologia 145: 364-370.
42. Tollrian, R., and C. D. Harvell. 1999. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
43. Van Buskirk, J. 2000. The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 81:2813-2821.
44. Van Buskirk, J. 2001. Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvae. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14:482-489.
45. Van Buskirk, J. 2002. A comparative test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: relationships between habitat and phenotype in anuran larvae. American Naturalist 160:87-102.
46. Van Buskirk, J., P. Anderwald, S. Lüpold, L. Reinhardt, and H. Schuler. 2003. The lure effect, tadpole tail shape, and the target of dragonfly strikes. Journal of Herpetology 37:420-424.
47. Van Buskirk, J., and M. Arioli. 2002. Dosage response of an induced defense: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology 83:1580-1585.
48. Van Buskirk, J., and S. A. McCollum. 2000a. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defense in tadpoles: morphology and behavior influence mortality risk from predation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13:336-347.
49. Van Buskirk, J., and S. A. McCollum. 2000b. Influence of tail shape on tadpole swimming performance. Journal of Experimental Biology 203:2149-2158.
50. Werner, E. E., and B. R. Anholt. 1996. Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77:157-169.