Conspecific density determines the magnitude and character of predator-induced phenotype

Oecologia

Volumn 153, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 871-878

  McCoy, Michael W ^a  

^a University of Florida ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; ANALYTICAL METHOD; CHEMICAL CUE; CONIFEROUS TREE; FITNESS; FROG; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MORPHOLOGY; MORTALITY; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; FROGS AND TOADS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HETEROPTERA; HISTOLOGY; LARVA; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; ANURA; BODY SIZE; HETEROPTERA; LARVA; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION DENSITY;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; HYLA FEMORALIS; HYLIDAE;

EID: 34548593190     PISSN: 00298549     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-007-0795-y     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abrams PA (1990) The evolution of antipredator traits in prey in response to evolutionary change in predators. Oikos 59:147-156
2. Abrams PA (1991) Life-history and the relationship between food availability and foraging effort. Ecology 72:1242-1252
3. Abrams PA, Rowe L (1996) The effects of predation on the age and size of maturity of prey. Evolution 50:1052-1061
4. Abrams PA, Hill C, Elmgren R (1990) The functional-response of the predatory polychaete, Harmothoe sarsi, to the amphipod, Pontoporeia affinis. Oikos 59:261-269
5. Alford RA, Harris RN (1988) Effects of larval growth history on anuran metamorphosis. Am Nat 131:91-106
6. Altig R, McDiarmid RW (1999) Body plan: development and morphology. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., pp 24-51
7. Bartoletti S, Flury BD, Nel DG (1999) Allometric extension. Biometrics 55:1210-1214
8. Benard MF (2006) Survival trade-offs between two predator-induced phenotypes in Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla). Ecology 87:340-346
9. Blows MW, Chenoweth SF, Hine E (2004) Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. Am Nat 163:329-340
10. Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, New York
11. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771-1789
12. Cohn RD (1999) Comparisons of multivariate relational structures in serially correlated data. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 4:238-257
13. Corruccini RS (1983) Principal components for allometric analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 60:451-453
14. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, Chichester
15. Denver RJ (1997) Proximate mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity in amphibian metamorphosis. Am Zool 37:172-184
16. Dodson SI (1989) The ecological role of chemical stimuli for the zooplankton-predator-induced morphology in Daphnia. Oecologia 78:361-367
17. Flury BD (1988) Common principal components and related multivariate models. Wiley, New York
18. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae. Herpetologica 16:183-190
19. Hentschel BT (1999) Complex life cycles in a variable environment: predicting when the timing of metamorphosis shifts from resource dependent to developmentally fixed. Am Nat 154:549-558
20. Holling CS (1961) Principles of insect predation. Annu Rev Entomol 6:163
21. Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Lincoln Mac Veagh Dial, New York
22. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2002) Predator functional responses: discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol Monogr 72:95-112
23. Jolicoeur P (1963) Multivariate generalization of allometry equation. Biometrics 19:497
24. Klingenberg CP (1996) Multivariate allometry. In: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE (eds) Advances in morphometrics. Plenum, New York, pp 23-49
25. Klingenberg CP, Spence JR (1993) Heterochrony and allometry-lessons from the water strider genus Limnoporus. Evolution 47:1834-1853
26. Klingenberg CP, Zimmermann M (1992) Static, ontogenetic, and evolutionary allometry-a multivariate comparison in 9-species of water-striders. Am Nat 140:601-620
27. Krueger DA, Dodson SI (1981) Embryological induction and predation ecology in Daphnia pulex. Limnol Oceanogr 26:219-223
28. Krzanowski WJ (1979) Between-groups comparison of principal components. J Am Stat Assoc 74:703-707
29. Lanoo MJ (1999) Integration: nervous and sensory system. In: McDiarmid RW, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., pp 149-169
30. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649-659
31. Luttbeg B, Rowe L, Mangel M (2003) Prey state and experimental design affect relative size of trait- and density-mediated indirect effects. Ecology 84:1140-1150
32. McCollum SA, Leimberger JD (1997) Predator-induced morphological changes in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affect tadpole shape and color. Oecologia 109:615-621
33. McCollum SA, VanBuskirk J (1996) Costs and benefits of a predator-induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution 50:583-593
34. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Osenberg CW, Miner BG, Vonesh JR (2006) Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia 148: 547-554
35. Mosimann JE (1970) Size allometry-size and shape variables with characterizations of lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 65:930-&
36. Newman RA (1989) Developmental plasticity of Scaphiopus couchii tadpoles in an unpredictable environment. Ecology 70:1775-1787
37. Peacor SD (2003) Phenotypic modifications to conspecific density arising from predation risk assessment. Oikos 100:409-415
38. Pfennig DW, Murphy PJ (2002) How fluctuating competition and phenotypic plasticity mediate species divergence. Evolution 56:1217-1228
39. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ (1999) Hierarchical comparison of genetic variance-covariance matrices. I. Using the Flury hierarchy. Evolution 53:1506-1515
40. Relyea RA (2001a) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523-540
41. Relyea RA (2001b) The relationship between predation risk and antipredator responses in larval anurans. Ecology 82:541-554
42. Relyea RA (2002) Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol Monogr 72:523-540
43. Riessen HP (1984) The other side of cyclomorphosis-why Daphnia lose their helmets. Limnol Oceanogr 29:1123-1127
44. Rot-Nikcevic I, Denver RJ, Wassersug RJ (2005) The influence of visual and tactile stimulation on growth and metamorphosis in anuran larvae. Funct Ecol 19:1008-1016
45. Rot-Nikcevic I, Taylor CN, Wassersug RJ (2006) The role of images of conspecifics as visual cues in the development and behavior of larval anurans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:19-25
46. Steppan SJ (1997a) Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic covariance structure.1. Contrasting results from matrix correlation and common principal component analyses. Evolution 51:571-586
47. Steppan SJ (1997b) Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic covariance structure.2. Reconstructing matrix evolution. Evolution 51:587-594
48. Teplitsky C, Plenet S, Joly P (2005) Costs and limits of dosage response to predation risk: to what extent can tadpoles invest in anti-predator morphology? Oecologia 145:364-370
49. Travis J (1984) Anuran size at metamorphosis-experimental test of a model based on intraspecific competition. Ecology 65:1155-1160
50. Van Buskirk J (2002) A comparative test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: relationships between habitat and phenotype in anuran larvae. Am Nat 160:87-102
51. Van Buskirk J, Arioli M (2002) Dosage response of an induced defense: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology 83:1580-1585
52. von Bertalanffy L (1957) Quantitative laws in Metabolism and Growth. Q Rev Biol 32:217-231
53. Vonesh JR, Bolker BM (2005) Compensatory larval responses shift trade-offs associated with predator-induced hatching plasticity. Ecology 86:1580-1591
54. Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW (2003) Multi-predator effects across life-history stages: non-additivity of egg- and larval-stage predation in an African treefrog. Ecol Lett 6:503-508
55. Vonesh JR, Warkentin KM (2006) Opposite shifts in size at metamorphosis in response to larval and metamorph predators. Ecology 87:556-562
56. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size structured populations. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:393-425
57. West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ (2001) A general model for ontogenetic growth. Nature 413:628-631
58. Wiackowski K, Staronska A (1999) The effect of predator and prey density on the induced defence of a ciliate. Funct Ecol 13:59-65