Interactions between competition and predation shape early growth and survival of two neotropical hylid tadpoles

Biotropica

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 633-639

  Gonzalez, Sergio C ^a   Touchon, Justin C ^b   Vonesh, James R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b Boston University   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anura; Hyla ebraccata; Panama; Phenotypic plasticity; Treefrog

Indexed keywords

DRAGONFLY; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOOD WEB; FROG; GROWTH RATE; INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION; MESOCOSM; NEOTROPICAL REGION; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; SURVIVAL;

AGALYCHNIS CALLIDRYAS; ANAX AMAZILI; ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); ANURA; HYLA EBRACCATA; HYLIDAE;

EID: 80052408429     PISSN: 00063606     EISSN: 17447429     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00748.x     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Alford, R. A. 1989. Competition between larval Rana palustris and Bufo americanus is not affected by variation in reproductive phenology. Copeia 1989: 993-1000.
2. Alford, R. A. 1999. Ecology: Resource use, competition, and predation. In R. W. McDiarmid and R. Altig (Eds.). Tadpoles: The biology of anuran larvae. pp. 240-278. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
3. Altig, R., M. R. Whiles, and C. L. Taylor. 2007. What do tadpoles really eat? Assessing the trophic status of an understudied and imperiled group of consumers in freshwater habitats. Freshwat. Biol. 52: 386-395.
4. Azevedo-Ramos, C., W. E. Magnusson, and P. Bayliss. 1999. Predation as the key factor structuring assemblages in a savannah area in central Amazonia. Copeia 1999: 22-33.
5. Bardsley, L., and T. J. C. Beebee. 1998. Interspecific competition between Bufo larvae, under conditions of community transition. Ecology 79: 1751-1759.
6. Bardsley, L., and T. J. C. Beebee. 2001. Non-behavioural interference competition between anuran larvae under semi-natural conditions. Oecologia 128: 360-367.
7. Bonsall, M. B., and M. P. Hassell. 1997. Apparent competition structures ecological assemblages. Nature 388: 371-373.
8. Caldwell, J. P. 1993. Brazil nut fruit capsules as phytotelmata-interactions among anuran and insect larvae. Can. J. Zool. 71: 1193-1201.
9. Connell, J. H. 1983. On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: Evidence from field experiments. Am. Nat. 122: 661-696.
10. Crawley, M. J. 2007. The R Book. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., West Sussex, UK.
11. Duellman, W. E., and L. Treub. 1986. Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
12. Faragher, S. G., and R. G. Jaeger. 1998. Tadpole bullies: Examining mechanisms of competition in a community of larval anurans. Can. J. Zool. 76: 144-153.
13. Gascon, C. 1991. Population- and community-level analyses of species occurrences of central Amazonian rainforest tadpole. Ecology 72: 1731-1746.
14. Gascon, C. 1992a. The effects of reproductive phenology on larval performance traits in a three-species assemblage of central Amazonian tadpoles. Oikos 65: 307-313.
15. Gascon, C. 1992b. Aquatic predators and tadpole prey in central Amazonia: Field data and experimental manipulations. Ecology 73: 971-980.
16. Gascon, C. 1995. Tropical larval anuran fitness in the absence of direct effects of predation and competition. Ecology 76: 2222-2229.
17. Gotelli, N. J., and A. M. Ellison. 2004. A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.
18. Gurevitch, J., J. A. Morrison, and L. V. Hedges. 2000. The interaction between competition and predation: A meta-analysis of field experiments. Am. Nat. 155: 435-453.
19. Gurevitch, J., and S. M. Scheiner (Eds.). 2001. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, New York.
20. Hero, J. M., C. Gascon, and W. E. Magnusson. 1998. Direct and indirect effects of predation on tadpole community structure in the Amazon rainforest. Aust. J. Ecol. 23: 474-482.
21. Hero, J. M., W. E. Magnusson, C. F. D. Rocha, and C. P. Catterall. 2001. Antipredator defenses influence the distribution of amphibian prey species in the central Amazon rain forest. Biotropica 33: 131-141.
22. Hite, J. 2009. Predator and abiotic effects on hatching phenotype and survival of arboreal frog eggs with implications for phytoplankton. MSc dissertation, Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, pp. 1-47.
23. Holt, R. D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor. Popul. Biol. 12: 197-229.
24. Kesavaraju, B., K. Damal, and S. A. Juliano. 2007. Threat-sensitive behavioral responses to concentrations of water-borne cues from predation. Ethology 113 (12): 199-206.
25. McDiarmid, R. W., and R. Altig. 1999. Tadpoles: The biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
26. Michel, M. J., and M. M. Adams. 2009. Differential effects of structural complexity on predator foraging behavior. Behav. Ecol. 20: 313-317.
27. Mirza, S. R., M. C. O. Ferrari, J. M. Kiesecker, and D. P. Chivers. 2006. Response of American toad tadpoles to predation cues: Behavioural response thresholds, threat sensitivity, and acquired predation recognition. Behaviour 143: 877-889.
28. Morin, P. J. 1983. Predation, competition, and the composition of larval anuran guilds. Ecol. Monogr. 53: 119-138.
29. Morin, P. J., and E. A. Johnson. 1988. Experimental studies of asymmetric competition among anurans. Oikos 53: 398-407.
30. Paine, R. T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am. Nat. 103: 91-93.
31. Peacor, S. D. 2002. Positive effect of predators on prey growth rate through induced modifications of prey behaviour. Ecol. Lett. 5: 77-85.
32. Pinheiro, J. C., and D. M. Bates. 2000. Mixed effects models in S and S-plus. Springer, New York, New York.
33. Relyea, R. A. 2000. Trait-mediated indirect effects in larval anurans: Reversing competition with the threat of predation. Ecology 81: 2278-2289.
34. Relyea, R. A. 2002a. The many faces of predation: How induction, selection, and thinning combine to alter prey phenotypes. Ecology 83: 1953-1964.
35. Relyea, R. A. 2002b. Costs of phenotypic plasticity. Am. Nat. 159: 272-282.
36. Relyea, R. A., and J. R. Auld. 2004. Having the guts to compete: How intestinal plasticity explains costs of inducible defenses. Ecol. Lett. 7: 869-875.
37. Savage, J. M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
38. Schoenoer, T. W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 122: 240-285.
39. Sih, A., P. Crowley, M. McPeek, J. Petranka, and K. Strohmeier. 1985. Predation, competition, and prey communities-a review of field experiments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 269-311.
40. Skelly, D. K. 1995. Competition and the distribution of spring peeper larvae. Oecologia 103: 203-207.
41. Skelly, D. K., and J. M. Kiesecker. 2001. Venue and outcome in ecological experiments: Manipulations of larval anurans. Oikos 94: 198-208.
42. Steiner, U. K. 2007. Linking antipredator behaviour, ingestion, gut evacuation and costs of predator-induced responses in tadpoles. Anim. Behav. 74: 1473-1479.
43. Touchon, J. C., and K. M. Warkentin. 2008a. Fish and dragonfly nymph predators induce opposite shifts in color and morphology of tadpoles. Oikos 117: 634-640.
44. Touchon, J. C., and K. M. Warkentin. 2008b. Reproductive mode plasticity: Aquatic and terrestrial oviposition in a treefrog. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 7495-7499.
45. Touchon, J. C., and K. M. Warkentin. 2009. Negative synergism of rainfall patterns and predators affects frog egg survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 715-723.
46. Touchon, J. C., and K. M. Warkentin. 2010. Short- and long-term effects of the abiotic egg environment on viability, development, and vulnerability to predators of a neotropical anuran. Funct. Ecol. 24: 566-575.
47. Twomey, E., V. Morales, and K. Summers. 2008. Evaluating condition-specific and asymmetric competition in a species-distribution context. Oikos 117: 1175-1184.
48. Van Buskirk, J. 2002. Phenotypic lability and the evolution of predator-induced plasticity in tadpoles. Evolution 56: 361-370.
49. Van Buskirk, J., and K. L. Yurewicz. 1998. Effects of predators on prey growth rate: Relative contributions of thinning and reduced activity. Oikos 82: 20-28.
50. Vonesh, J. R., and K. M. Warkentin. 2006. Opposite shifts in size at metamorphosis in response to larval and metamorph predators. Ecology 87: 556-562.
51. Warkentin, K. M. 1995. Adaptive plasticity in hatching age: A response to predation risk trade-offs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92: 3507-3510.
52. Warkentin, K. M. 2000. Wasp predation and wasp-induced hatching of red-eyed treefrog eggs. Anim. Behav. 60: 503-510.
53. Wellborn, G. A., D. K. Skelly, and E. E. Werner. 1996. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 337-363.
54. Wells, K. D. 2007. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
55. Werner, E. E., and B. R. Anholt. 1996. Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: Consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77: 157-169.
56. Werner, E. E., and M. A. McPeek. 1994. Direct and indirect effects of predators on 2 anuran species along an environmental gradient. Ecology 75: 1368-1382.
57. Werner, E. E., D. K. Skelly, R. A. Relyea, and K. L. Yurewicz. 2007. Amphibian species richness across environmental gradients. Oikos 116: 1697-1712.