Predation- and competition-mediated brain plasticity in Rana temporaria tadpoles

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 2300-2308

  Gonda, A ^a   Trokovic, N ^a   Herczeg, G ^a   Laurila, A ^b   Merila J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Amphibian; Brain size; Competition; Phenotypic plasticity; Predation

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BRAIN; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FROG; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; PREDATION RISK;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BRAIN; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FROG; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; LARVA; MORPHOMETRICS; NERVE CELL PLASTICITY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; PREDATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; SWEDEN;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; BRAIN; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; LARVA; LINEAR MODELS; NEURONAL PLASTICITY; POPULATION DENSITY; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; RANA TEMPORARIA; SWEDEN;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; RANA TEMPORARIA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 77958592672     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02066.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adar, E., Lotem, A. & Barnea, A. 2008. The effect of social environment on singing behavior in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) and its implication for neuronal recruitment. Behav. Brain Res. 187: 178-184.
2. Aiello, L.C. & Wheeler, P. 1995. The expensive-tissue hypothesis. Curr. Anthropol. 36: 199-221.
3. Anholt, B.R. & Werner, E.E. 1996. Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77: 157-169.
4. Barton, R.A. & Harvey, P.H. 2000. Mosaic evolution of brain structure in mammals. Nature 405: 1055-1058.
5. Barton, R.A., Purvis, A. & Harvey, P.H. 1995. Evolutionary radiation of visual and olfactory brain systems in primates, bats and insectivores. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci. 348: 381-392.
6. Callahan, H.S., Maughan, H. & Steiner, U.K. 2008. Phenotypic plasticity, costs of phenotypes, and costs of plasticity: toward an integrative view. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1133: 44-66.
7. Catlow, B.J., Rowe, A.R., Clearwater, C.R., Mamcarz, M., Arendash, G.W. & Sanchez-Ramos, J. 2009. Effects of environmental enrichment and physical activity on neurogenesis in transgenic PS1/APP mice. Brain Res. 1256: 173-179.
8. Cotman, C.W. & Berchtold, N.C. 2002. Exercise: a behavioral intervention to enhance brain health and plasticity. Trends Neurosci. 25: 295-301.
9. Font, E., Desfilis, E., Pérez-Cañellas, M.M. & Garcia-Verdugo, J.M. 2001. Neurogenesis and neuronal regeneration in the adult reptilian brain. Brain Behav. Evol. 58: 276-295.
10. Fowler, D.C., Liu, Y., Ouimet, C. & Wang, Z. 2002. The effects of social environment on adult neurogenesis in the female prairie vole. J. Neurobiol. 51: 115-128.
11. Gonda, A., Herczeg, G. & Merilä, J. 2009. Habitat-dependent and -independent plastic responses to social environment in the nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) brain. Proc. R. Soc. B 276: 2085-2092.
12. Gosner, K.L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
13. Gould, E., Tanapat, P., Hastings, N.B. & Shors, T.J. 1999. Neurogenesis in adulthood: a possible role in learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3: 186-192.
14. Hoff, K.S., Blaustein, A.R., McDiarmid, R.W. & Altig, R. 1999. Behaviour: interactions and their consequences. In: Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae (R.W. McDiarmid & R. Altig, eds), pp. 215-239. University of Chicago, Chicago.
15. Jacoby, J. & Rubunson, K. 1983. The acoustic and lateral line nuclei are distinct in the premetamorphic frog, Rana catesbeiana. J. Comp. Neurol. 216: 152-161.
16. Kats, L.B. & Dill, L.M. 1998. The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5: 361-394.
17. Kempermann, G., Kuhn, H.G. & Gage, F.H. 1997. More hippocampal neurons in adult mice living in enriched environment. Nature 386: 493-495.
18. Kihslinger, R.L. & Nevitt, G.A. 2006. Early rearing environment impacts cerebellar growth in juvenile salmon. J. Exp. Biol. 209: 504-509.
19. Kihslinger, R.L., Lema, S.C. & Nevitt, G.A. 2006. Environmental rearing conditions produce forebrain differences in wild Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 145: 145-151.
20. Köhler, M. & Moyà-Solà, S. 2004. Reduction of brain and sense organs in the fossil insular bovid Myotragus. Brain Behav. Evol. 63: 125-140.
21. Kotrschal, K., Van Staaden, M.J. & Huber, R. 1998. Fish brains: evolution and environmental relationships. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 8: 373-408.
22. Laurila, A. 1998. Breeding habitat selection and larval performance of two anurans in freshwater rock-pools. Ecography 21: 484-494.
23. Laurila, A., Kujasalo, J. & Ranta, E. 1998. Predator-induced changes in life-history in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Oikos 83: 307-317.
24. Laurila, A., Jarvi-Laturi, M., Pakkasmaa, S. & Merilä, J. 2004. Temporal variation in predator risk: stage-dependency, graded responses and fitness costs in tadpole antipredator defences. Oikos 107: 90-99.
25. Laurila, A., Pakkasmaa, S. & Merilä, J. 2006. Population divergence in growth rate and antipredator defences in Rana arvalis. Oecologia 147: 585-595.
26. Lisney, T.J., Bennett, M.B. & Collin, S.P. 2007. Volumetric analysis of brain areas indicates a shift in sensory orientation during development in the deep-sea grenadier Coryphaenoides armatus. Raffles Bull. Zool. 14: 7-15.
27. McCollum, S.A. & Van Buskirk, J. 1996. Costs and benefits of a predator induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution 50: 583-593.
28. McCormick, C.A. 1999. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. In: Handbook of Auditory Research (A.N. Popper & R.R. Fay, eds), pp. 155-217. Springer-Verlag, New York.
29. McCoy, M.W., Bolker, B.M., Osenberg, C.W., Miner, B.G. & Vonesh, J.R. 2006. Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia 148: 547-554.
30. Miner, B.G., Sultan, S.E., Morgan, S.G., Padilla, D.K. & Relyea, R.A. 2005. Ecological consequences of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 685-692.
31. Nottebohm, F. 1981. A brain for all seasons: cyclical anatomical changes in song control nuclei of the canary brain. Science 214: 1368-1370.
32. Piersma, T. & Drent, J. 2003. Phenotypic flexibility and the evolution of organismal design. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 228-233.
33. Relyea, R.A. 2002. Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol. Monogr. 72: 523-540.
34. Relyea, R.A. & Auld, J.R. 2004. Having the guts to compete: how intestinal plasticity explains costs of inducible defences. Ecol. Lett. 7: 869-875.
35. Relyea, R.A. & Auld, J.R. 2005. Predator- and competitor-induced plasticity: how changes in foraging morphology affect phenotypic trade-offs. Ecology 86: 1723-1729.
36. Rhode, J.S., Van Praag, H., Jeffrey, S., Girard, I., Mitchell, G.S., Garland, T. & Gage, F.H. 2003. Exercise increases hippocampal neurogenesis to high levels but does not improve spatial learning in mice bred for increased voluntary wheel running. Behav. Neurosci. 117: 1006-1016.
37. Schlichting, C.D. & Pigliucci, M. 1998. Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
38. Schoeppner, N.M. & Relyea, R.A. 2005. Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences. Ecol. Lett. 8: 505-512.
39. Semlitsch, R.D. & Reyer, H.U. 1992. Modification of anti-predator behavior in tadpoles by environmental conditions. J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 353-360.
40. Skelly, D.K. & Werner, E.E. 1990. Behavioral and life-historical responses of larval American toads to an odonate predator. Ecology 71: 2313-2322.
41. Slos, S. & Stoks, R. 2008. Predation induces stress proteins and reduces antioxidant defense. Funct. Ecol. 22: 637-642.
42. Sorensen, C., Overly, O., Summers, C.H. & Nilson, G.E. 2007. Social regulation of neurogenesis in teleosts. Brain Behav. Evol. 70: 239.
43. Steiner, U.K. 2007. Linking antipredator behaviour, ingestion, gut evacuation and costs of predator-induced responses to tadpoles. Anim. Behav. 74: 1473-1479.
44. Stoks, R., De Block, M., Van De Meutter, F. & Johansson, F. 2005. Predation cost of rapid growth: behavioural coupling and physiological decoupling. J. Anim. Ecol. 74: 708-715.
45. Taylor, A.B. & Van Schaik, C.P. 2007. Variation in brain size and ecology in Pongo. J. Hum. Evol. 52: 59-71.
46. Teplitsky, C. & Laurila, A. 2007. Flexible defense strategies: competition modifies investment in behavioral vs. morphological defenses. Ecology 88: 1641-1646.
47. Torgerson, C.S., Gdovin, M.J. & Remmers, J.E. 2001. Sites of respiratory rhythmogenesis during development in the tadpole. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 280: 913-920.
48. Tramontin, A.D. & Brenowitz, E.A. 2000. Seasonal plasticity in adult brain. Trends Neurosci. 23: 251-258.
49. Van Buskirk, J. 2001. Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvae. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 482-489.
50. Van Buskirk, J. & Relyea, R.A. 1998. Selection for phenotypic plasticity in Rana sylvatica tadpoles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 65: 301-328.
51. Van Praag, H., Kempermann, G. & Cage, F.H. 2000. Neural consequences of environmental enrichment. Nat. Rev. 1: 191-198.
52. Werner, E.E. & Anholt, B.R. 1993. Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality-rates mediated by foraging activity. Am. Nat. 142: 242-272.
53. Zupanc, G.K.H. 2001. Adult neurogenesis and neuronal regeneration in the central nervous system of teleost fish. Brain Behav. Evol. 58: 250-275.