Influence of experimental venue on phenotype: Multiple traits reveal multiple answers

Functional Ecology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 513-521

  Winkler, Jasmin D ^a   Van Buskirk, Josh ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Development; Field experiment; Laboratory experiment; Mesocosm experiment; Morphology; Rana; Tadpole

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FIELDWORK; FROG; LABORATORY METHOD; LARVA; MESOCOSM; METAMORPHOSIS; MORPHOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; PRECISION; PREDATION RISK; TRADE-OFF;

ANAX IMPERATOR; ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); ANURA; RANA TEMPORARIA;

EID: 84859106619     PISSN: 02698463     EISSN: 13652435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.01965.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abramoff, M.D., Magalhaes, P.J. & Ram, S.J. (2004) Image Processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics International, 11, 36-42.
2. Bancroft, B.A., Baker, N.J. & Blaustein, A.R. (2007) Effects of UVB radiation on marine and freshwater organisms: a synthesis through meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 10, 332-345.
3. Bell, T., Neill, W.E. & Schluter, D. (2003) The effect of temporal scale on the outcome of trophic cascade experiments. Oecologia, 134, 578-586.
4. Blaustein, L., Kiflawi, M., Eitam, A., Mangel, M. & Cohen, J.E. (2004) Oviposition habitat selection in response to risk of predation in temporary pools: mode of detection and consistency across experimental venue. Oecologia, 138, 300-305.
5. Boone, M.D. & James, S.M. (2005) Aquatic and terrestrial mesocosms in amphibian ecotoxicology. Applied Herpetology, 2, 231-257.
6. Brown, C.J., Blossey, B., Maerz, J.C. & Joule, S.J. (2006) Invasive plant and experimental venue affect tadpole performance. Biological Invasions, 8, 327-338.
7. Carpenter, S.R. (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology, 77, 677-680.
8. Chalcraft, D.R., Binckley, C.A. & Resetarits, W.J. (2005) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength: comment. Ecology, 86, 1061-1067.
9. Diamond, J. (1986) Overview: laboratory experiments, field experiments, and natural experiments. Community Ecology (eds J. Diamond & T.J. Case ), pp. 3-22, Harper and Rowe, New York.
10. Elgar, M.A. (1989) Predator vigilance and group-size in mammals and birds - a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 64, 13-33.
11. Fraker, M.E., Hu, F., Cuddapah, V., McCollum, S.A., Relyea, R.A., Hempel, J. & Denver, R.J. (2009) Characterization of an alarm pheromone secreted by amphibian tadpoles that induces behavioral inhibition and suppression of the neuroendocrine stress axis. Hormones and Behavior, 55, 520-529.
12. Gosner, K.L. (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica, 16, 183-190.
13. Hairston, N.G. (1989) Ecological Experiments: Purpose, Design, and Execution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Hettyey, A., Zsarnoczai, S., Vincze, K., Hoi, H. & Laurila, A. (2010) Interactions between the information content of different chemical cues affect induced defences in tadpoles. Oikos, 119, 1814-1822.
15. Hickman, C.R., Stone, M.D. & Mathis, A. (2004) Priority use of chemical over visual cues for detection of predators by graybelly salamanders, Eurycea multiplicata griseogaster. Herpetologica, 60, 203-210.
16. Jaeger, R.G. & Walls, S.C. (1989) On salamander guilds and ecological methodology. Herpetologica, 45, 111-119.
17. Jowers, M.J., Campell-Palmer, R., Walsh, P.T. & Downie, J.R. (2006) Intraspecific variation in the avoidance response of stream frog (Mannophryne trinitatis) tadpoles to fish and prawn predators. The Herpetological Journal, 16, 337-346.
18. Kiesecker, J.M., Chivers, D.P. & Blaustein, A.R. (1996) The use of chemical cues in predator recognition by western toad tadpoles. Animal Behaviour, 52, 1237-1245.
19. Kraft, P.G., Franklin, C.E. & Blows, M.W. (2006) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles: extension or innovation? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 450-458.
20. LaFiandra, E.M. & 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.
21. Lawton, J.H. (1995) Ecological experiments with model systems. Science, 269, 328-331.
22. Morin, P.J. (1998) Realism, precision, and generality in experimental tests of ecological theory. Issues and Perspectives in Experimental Ecology (eds W.J. Resetarits & J. Bernardo ), pp. 50-70, Oxford University Press, New York.
23. Pearman, P.B. (1993) Effects of habitat size on tadpole populations. Ecology, 74, 1982-1991.
24. Petersen, J.E., Cornwell, J.C. & Kemp, W.M. (1999) Implicit scaling in the design of experimental aquatic ecosystems. Oikos, 85, 3-18.
25. Romanuk, T.N., Vogt, R.J. & Kolasa, J. (2009) Ecological realism and mechanisms by which diversity begets stability. Oikos, 118, 819-828.
26. Saidapur, S.K., Veeranagoudar, D.K., Hiragond, N.C. & Shanbhag, B.A. (2009) Mechanism of predator-prey detection and behavioral responses in some anuran tadpoles. Chemoecology, 19, 21-28.
27. Schiesari, L. (2006) Pond canopy cover: a resource gradient for anuran larvae. Freshwater Biology, 51, 412-423.
28. Schoeppner, N.M. & Relyea, R.A. (2008) Detecting small environmental differences: risk-response curves for predator-induced behavior and morphology. Oecologia, 154, 743-754.
29. Skelly, D.K. (2002) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength. Ecology, 83, 2097-2101.
30. Skelly, D.K., Freidenburg, L.K. & Kiesecker, J.M. (2002) Forest canopy and the performance of larval amphibians. Ecology, 83, 983-992.
31. Skelly, D.K. & Kiesecker, J.M. (2001) Venue and outcome in ecological experiments: manipulations of larval anurans. Oikos, 94, 198-208.
32. Spivak, A.C., Vanni, M.J. & Mette, E.M. (2011) Moving on up: can results from simple aquatic mesocosm experiments be applied across broad spatial scales? Freshwater Biology, 56, 279-291.
33. Stauffer, H.P. & Semlitsch, R.D. (1993) Effects of visual, chemical and tactile cues of fish on the behavioral responses of tadpoles. Animal Behaviour, 46, 355-364.
34. Urban, M.C. (2008) The evolution of prey body size reaction norms in diverse communities. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77, 346-355.
35. Van Buskirk, J. (2009) Natural variation in morphology of larval amphibians: phenotypic plasticity in nature? Ecological Monographs, 79, 681-705.
36. Van Buskirk, J. (2011) Amphibian phenotypic variation along a gradient in canopy cover: species differences and plasticity. Oikos, 120, 906-914.
37. Van Buskirk, J. & Arioli, M. (2002) Dosage response of an induced defense: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk? Ecology, 83, 1580-1585.
38. Van Buskirk, J. & McCollum, S.A. (1999) Plasticity and selection explain variation in tadpole phenotype between ponds with different predator composition. Oikos, 85, 31-39.
39. Van Buskirk, J. & Schmidt, B.R. (2000) Predator-induced plasticity in larval newts: trade-offs, selection, and variation in nature. Ecology, 81, 3009-3028.
40. Van Buskirk, J., Ferrari, M., Küng, D., Naepflin, K. & Ritter, N. (2011) Prey risk assessment depends on conspecific density. Oikos, 120, 1235-1239.
41. Weigensberg, I. & Roff, D.A. (1996) Natural heritabilities: can they be reliably estimated in the laboratory? Evolution, 50, 2149-2157.
42. Wilbur, H.M. (1989) In defense of tanks. Herpetologica, 45, 122-123.
43. Zelditch, M.L., Swiderski, D.L., Sheets, H.D. & Fink, W.L. (2004) Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists. Elsevier, New York.