Predator induction of spine length in larval Leucorrhinia intacta (Odonata)

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 435-447

  McCauley, Shannon J ^a,b   Davis, Christopher J ^a   Werner, Earl E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Habitat distribution; Leucorrhinia; Phenotypic plasticity; Predator prey interactions

Indexed keywords

ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); BOS; LEUCORRHINIA; LEUCORRHINIA INTACTA; LIBELLULIDAE; ODONATA;

EID: 43749095933     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arnqvist, G. and Johansson, F. 1998. Ontogenetic reaction norms of predator-induced defensive morphology in dragonfly larvae. Ecology, 79: 1847-1858.
2. Benard, M.F. 2004. Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in organisms with complex life-histories. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 35: 651-673.
3. Benard, M.F. 2006. Survival trade-offs between two predator-induced phenotypes in pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla). Ecology, 87: 340-346.
4. Bendell, B.E. and McNicol, D.K. 1995. Lake acidity, fish predation, and the distribution and abundance of some littoral insects. Hydrobiologia, 302: 133-145.
5. Benke, A.C. 1970. A method for comparing individual growth rates of aquatic insects with special reference to Odonata. Ecology, 51: 328-331.
6. Corbet, P.S. 1999. Dragonflies: Behavior and Ecology of Odonata. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates/Cornell University Press.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Havel, J.E. 1987. Predator-induced defenses: a review. In Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities (W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih, eds.), pp. 263-278. Hanover, NH: University of New England Press.
10. Hovmöller, R. and Johansson, F. 2004. A phylogenetic perspective on larval spine morphology in Leucorrhinia (Odonata: Libellulidae) based on ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 rDNA sequences. Molec. Phylogenet. Evol., 30: 653-662.
11. Johansson, F. 2002. Reaction norms and production costs of predator-induced morphological defences in a larval dragonfly (Leucorrhinia dubia: Odonata). Can. J. Zool., 80: 944-950.
12. Johansson, F. and Brodin, T. 2003. Effects of fish predators and abiotic factors on dragonfly community structure. J. Freshw. Ecol., 18: 415-423.
13. Johansson, F. and Samuelson, L. 1994. Fish-induced variation in abdominal spine length of Leucorrhinia dubia (Odonata) larvae? Oecologia, 100: 74-79.
14. Johansson, F. and Wahlström, E. 2002. Induced morphological defence: evidence from whole-lake manipulation experiments. Can. J. Zool., 80: 199-206.
15. Lass, S. and Spaak, P. 2003. Chemically induced anti-predator defences in plankton: a review. Hydrobiologia, 491: 221-239.
16. Levins, R. 1963. Theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment: II. Developmental flexibility and niche selection. Am. Nat., 97: 75-90.
17. Lively, C.M. 1986. Predator-induced shell dimorphism in the acorn barnacle Chthamalus anisopoma. Evolution, 40: 232-242.
18. McCauley, S.J. 2005. Species distributions in anisopteran odonates: effects of local and regional processes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
19. Mikolajewski, D.J. and Johansson, F. 2004. Morphological and behavioral defenses in dragonfly larvae: trait compensation and cospecialization. Behav. Ecol., 15: 614-620.
20. Mikolajewski, D.J. and Rolff, J. 2004. Benefits of morphological defence demonstrated by direct manipulation in larval dragonflies. Evol. Ecol. Res., 6: 619-626.
21. Mikolajewski, D.J., Johansson, F., Wohlfahrt, B. and Stoks, R. 2006. Invertebrate predation selects for the loss of a morphological antipredator trait. Evolution, 60: 1306-1310.
22. Rasband, W. 2006. ImageJ 1.36b. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
23. Relyea, R.A. 2004. Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology, 85: 172-179.
24. Relyea, R.A. and Auld, J.R. 2004. Having the guts to compete: how intestinal plasticity explains costs of inducible defences. Ecol. Lett., 7: 869-875.
25. Rohlf, F.J. 2006. tpsDig, Digitize Landmarks and Outlines, version 2.05 (software). Stony Brook, NY: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
26. Strong, K.F. and Robinson, G. 2004. Odonate communities of acidic Adirondack Mountain lakes. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 23: 839-852.
27. Tollrian, R. and Dodson, S.I. 1999. Inducible defenses in Cladocera: constraints, costs, and multipredator environments. In The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses (R. Tollrian and C.D. Harvell, eds.), pp. 177-202. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. Tollrian, R. and Harvell, C.D., eds. 1999. The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Van Buskirk, J. 2000. The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology, 81: 2813-2821.
30. Van Buskirk, J. and Arioli, M. 2002. Dosage response of an induced defense: How sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology, 83: 1580-1585.