Interactions between the information content of different chemical cues affect induced defences in tadpoles

Oikos

Volumn 119, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1814-1822

  Hettyey, Attila ^a,b   Zsarnóczai, Szilvia ^b   Vincze, Krisztina ^b   Hoi, Herbert ^a   Laurila, Anssi ^c  

^a KONRAD LORENZ INSTITUTE FOR ETHOLOGY   (Austria)

^b EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; CHEMICAL CUE; FOOD AVAILABILITY; FROG; MORPHOLOGY; ONTOGENY; PHENOTYPE; PREDATION RISK;

AESHNA CYANEA; ANIMALIA; ANURA; RANA DALMATINA; SALAMANDROIDEA; TRITURUS VULGARIS;

EID: 77958458747     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18563.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Chivers D. P. and Smith R. J. F. 1998. Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5: 338-352.
2. Eklöv P. and Werner E. E. 2000. Multiple predator effects on size-dependent behavior and mortality of two species of anuran larvae. Oikos 88: 250-258.
3. Engqvist L. 2005. The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Anim. Behav. 70: 967-971.
4. Ferrari M. C. O. et al. 2006. The nose knows: minnows determine predator proximity and density through detection of predator odours. Anim. Behav. 72: 927-932.
5. Ferrari M. C. O. et al. 2007. The paradox of risk assessment: comparing responses of fathead minnows to capture-released and diet-released alarm cues from two different predators. Chemoecology 17: 157-161.
6. Ferrari M. C. O. et al. 2008. Degradation of chemical alarm cues under natural conditions: risk assessment by larval woodfrogs. Chemoecology 17: 263-266.
7. Fraker M. E. 2008. The dynamics of predation risk assessment: responses of anuran larvae to chemical cues of predators. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 638-645.
8. Fraker M. E. et al. 2009. Characterization of an alarm pheromone secreted by amphibian tadpoles that induces behavioral inhibition and suppression of the neuroendocrine stress axis. Horm. Behav. 55: 520-529.
9. Freeman A. S. et al. 2009. Poor phenotypic integration of blue mussel inducible defenses in environments with multiple predators. Oikos 118: 758-766.
10. Gasc J. P. et al. 1997. Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Soc. Eur. Herpetol., Mus. Natl d'Hist. Nat. & Service du Petrimone Naturel, Paris.
11. Gosner K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging Anuran embryos and larvae with notes on their identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
12. Griffiths R. A. 1985. Diel profile of behaviour in the smooth newt, Triturus vulgaris (L.): an analysis of environmental cues and endogenous timing. Anim. Behav. 33: 573-582.
13. Houston A. I. et al. 1993. General results concerning the tradeoff between gaining energy and avoiding predation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 341: 375-397.
14. Kiesecker J. M. et al. 1999. Identification of a disturbance signal in larval red-legged frogs, Rana aurora. Anim. Behav. 57: 1295-1300.
15. Kiesecker J. M. et al. 2002. Effect of predator diet on life-history shifts of red-legged frogs, Rana aurora. J. Chem. Ecol. 28: 1007-1015.
16. Kishida O. and Nishimura K. 2005. Multiple inducible defences against multiple predators in the anuran tadpole, Rana pirica. Evol. Ecol. Res. 7: 619-631.
17. Kusch J. 1995. Adaptation of inducible defense in Euplotes daidaleos (Ciliophora) to predation risks by various predators. Microbiol. Ecol. 30: 79-88.
18. Kusch R. C. et al. 2004. Making sense of predator scents: investigating the sophistication of predator assessment abilities of fathead minnows. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 55: 551-555.
19. LaFiandra E. M. and Babbitt K. J. 2004. Predator induced phenotypic plasticity in the pinewoods tree frog, Hyla femoralis: necessary cues and the cost of development. Oecologia 138: 350-359.
20. Laforsch C. et al. 2004. An acoustic microscopy technique reveals hidden morphological defenses in Daphnia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101: 15911-15914.
21. Lardner B. 2000. Morphological and life history responses to predators in larvae of seven anurans. Oikos 88: 169-180.
22. Laurila A. et al. 1998. Predator-induced changes in life history in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Oikos 83: 307-317.
23. Laurila A. et al. 2004. Temporal variation in predation risk: stage-dependency, graded responses and fitness costs in tadpole antipredator defences. Oikos 107: 90-99.
24. Lima S. L. and Bednekoff P. A. 1999. Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am. Nat. 153: 649-659.
25. Moore R. D. et al. 2004. Induced defences in an endangered amphibian in response to an introduced snake predator. Oecologia 141: 139-147.
26. Nöllert A. and Nöllert C. 1992. Die Amphibien Europas: Bestimmung, Gefährdung, Schutz. - Franckh-Kosmos Verlag.
27. Peacor S. D. 2006. Behavioural response of bullfrog tadpoles to chemical cues of predation risk are affected by cue age and water source. Hydrobiologia 573: 39-44.
28. Petranka J. and Hayes L. 1998. Chemically mediated avoidance of a predatory odonate (Anax junius) by American toad (Bufo americanus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42: 263-271.
29. Relyea R. A. 2001. Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82: 523-540.
30. Relyea R. A. 2002. Costs of phenotypic plasticity. Am. Nat. 159: 272-282.
31. Relyea R. A. 2004. Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85: 172-179.
32. Richardson J. L. 2006. Novel features of an inducible defense system in larval tree frogs (Hyla chrysoscelis). Ecology 87: 780-787.
33. Rot-Nikcevic I. et al. 2005. The influence of visual and tactile stimulation on growth and metamorphosis in anuran larvae. Funct. Ecol. 19: 1008-1016.
34. Schoeppner N. M. and Relyea R. A. 2005. Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences. Ecol. Lett. 8: 505-512.
35. Schoeppner N. M. and Relyea R. A. 2008. Detecting small environmental differences: risk-response curves for predator-induced behavior and morphology. Oecologia 154: 743-754.
36. Schoeppner N. M. and Relyea R. A. 2009. Interpreting the smells of predation: how alarm cues and kairomones induce different prey defences. Funct. Ecol. 23: 1114-1121.
37. Semlitsch R. D. 1990. Effects of body size, sibship, and tail injury on the susceptibility of tadpoles to dragonfly predation. Can. J. Zool. 68: 127-130.
38. Teplitsky C. et al. 2004. Hierarchical responses of tadpoles to multiple predators. Ecology 85: 2888-2894.
39. Teplitsky C. et al. 2005a. Costs and limits of dosage response to predation risk: to what extent can tadpoles invest in anti-predator morphology? Oecologia 145: 364-370.
40. Teplitsky C. et al. 2005b. Escape behaviour and ultimate causes of specific induced defences in an anuran tadpole. J. Evol. Biol. 18: 180-190.
41. Teplitsky C. et al. 2007. Adaptive plasticity in stressful environments: acidity constrains inducible defences in Rana arvalis. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9: 447-458.
42. Tollrian R. 1993. Neckteeth formation in Daphnia pulex as an example of continuous plasticity: morphological effects of Chaoborus kairomones concentration and their quantification. J. Plankton Res. 15: 1309-1318.
43. Tollrian R. and Harvell C. D. 1999. The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. - Princeton Univ. Press.
44. Travis J. et al. 1985. The role of relative body size in a predator-prey relationship between dragonfly naiads and larval anurans. Oikos 45: 59-65.
45. Turner A. M. and Montgomery S. L. 2003. Spatial and temporal scales of predator avoidance: experiments with fish and snails. Ecology 84: 616-622.
46. Urban M. C. 2007a. The growth-predation risk tradeoff under a growing gape-limited predation threat. Ecology 88: 2587-2597.
47. Urban M. C. 2007b. Risky prey behavior evolves in risky habitats. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104: 14377-14382.
48. Van Buskirk J. 2001. Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvae. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 482-489.
49. 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.
50. Van Buskirk J. and McCollum S. A. 2000. Influence of tail shape on tadpole swimming performance. J. Exp. Biol. 203: 2149-2158.
51. Van Buskirk J. and Arioli M. 2002. Dosage response of an induced defense: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology 83: 1580-1585.
52. Werner E. E. 1986. Amphibian metamorphosis: growth rate, predation risk, and the optimal size at transformation. Am. Nat. 128: 319-341.
53. Werner E. E. and Anholt B. R. 1993. Ecological consequences of the tradeoff between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am. Nat. 1412: 242-272.
54. Wiackowski K. and Staronska A. 1999. The effect of predator and prey density on the induced defence of a ciliate. Funct. Ecol. 13: 59-65.
55. Wilson R. S. et al. 2005. Predator-specific changes in the morphology and swimming performance of larval Rana lessonae. Funct. Ecol. 19: 238-244.