Divergent responses of exposed and naive Pacific tree frog tadpoles to invasive predatory crayfish

Oecologia

Volumn 174, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 241-252

  Pease, Katherine M ^a,b   Wayne, Robert K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Heal the Bay   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Anti predator defenses; Biological invasions; Red swamp crayfish; Tadpole

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; CHEMICAL CUE; COEXISTENCE; CRAYFISH; FROG; INVASIVE SPECIES; MORPHOLOGY; NATIVE SPECIES; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; PHYSIOLOGY; SURVIVORSHIP;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

ANURA; ASTACOIDEA; HYLIDAE; PROCAMBARUS CLARKII; PSEUDACRIS; PSEUDACRIS REGILLA;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ANURA; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR; CRAYFISH; HISTOLOGY; INTRODUCED SPECIES; LARVA; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDATION; RIVER; UNITED STATES;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; ANURA; ASTACOIDEA; AVOIDANCE LEARNING; CALIFORNIA; CUES; INTRODUCED SPECIES; LARVA; PHENOTYPE; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; RIVERS;

EID: 84891901053     PISSN: 00298549     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-013-2745-1     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Benard MF (2006) Survival trade-offs between two predator-induced phenotypes in Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla). Ecology 87: 340-346.
2. Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (2000) JWatcher 0. 9. An introductory user's guide. http://www. jwatcher. ucla. edu.
3. Case TJ, Bolger DT (1991) The role of introduced species in shaping the distribution and abundance of island reptiles. Evol Ecol 5: 272-290.
4. Chivers DP, Kiesecker JM, Marco A, Wildy EL, Blaustein AR (1999) Shifts in life history as a response to predation in western toads (Bufo boreas). J Chem Ecol 25: 2455-2463.
5. Cruz MJ, Pascoal S, Tejedo M, Rebelo R (2006) Predation by an exotic crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, on Natterjack toad, Bufo calamita, embryos: its role on the exclusion of this amphibian from its breeding ponds. Copeia 2: 274-280.
6. Dayton GH, Saenz D, Baum KA, Langerhans RB, DeWitt TJ (2005) Body shape, burst speed and escape behavior of larval anurans. Oikos 111: 582-591.
7. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2010) The ghost of predation future: threat sensitive and temporal assessment of risk by embryonic woodfrogs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64: 549-555.
8. Gamradt SC, Kats LB (1996) Effect of introduced crayfish and mosquitofish on California newts. Conserv Biol 10(4): 1155-1162.
9. Gamradt SC, Kats LB, Anzalone CB (1997) Aggression by non-native crayfish deters breeding in California newts. Conserv Biol 11(3): 793-796.
10. Gherardi F, Renai B, Corti C (2001) Crayfish predation on tadpoles: a comparison between a native (Austropotamobius pallipes) and an alien species (Procambarus clarkii). Bull Fr Peche Piscicult.
11. Gomez-Mestre I, Diaz-Paniagua C (2011) Invasive predatory crayfish do not trigger inducible defences in tadpoles. Proc R Soc B. doi: 10. 1098/rspb. 2010. 2762.
12. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
13. Hillis DM (1982) Morphological differentiation and adaptation of the larvae of Rana berlandieri and Rana sphenocephala (Rana pipiens complex) in sympatry. Copeia 1: 168-174.
14. Holmes SJ (1924) The genus Cambarus in California. Science 60: 358-359.
15. Hoverman JT, Auld JR, Relyea RA (2005) Putting prey back together again: integrating predator-induced behavior, morphology, and life history. Oecologia 144: 481-491.
16. Jennings RD, Scott NJ Jr (1993) Ecologically correlated morphological variation in tadpoles of the leopard frog, Rana chiricahuensis. J Herpetol 27(3): 285-293.
17. Kats LB, Ferrer RP (2003) Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers Distrib 9: 99-110.
18. Kats LB, Petranka JW, Sih A (1988) Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69(6): 1865-1870.
19. Kerby JL, Riley SPD, Kats LB, Wilson P (2005) Barriers and flow as limiting factors in the spread of an invasive crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) in Southern California streams. Biol Conserv 126: 402-409.
20. Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR (1997) Population differences in responses of red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 78(6): 1752-1760.
21. Kishida O, Nishimura K (2004) Bulgy tadpoles: inducible defense morph. Oecologia 140(3): 414-421.
22. Kraft PG, Wilson RS, Franklin CE, Blows MW (2006) Substantial changes in the genetic basis of tadpole morphology of Rana lessonae in the presence of predators. J Evol Biol 19: 1813-1818.
23. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated traits. Evolution 37(6): 1210-1226.
24. 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.
25. Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience 48(1): 25-34.
26. McCollum SA, Leimberger JD (1997) Predator-induced morphological changes in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affects tadpole shape and color. Oecologia 109: 615-621.
27. McCollum SA, van Buskirk J (1996) Costs and benefits of a predator-induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution 50(2): 583-593.
28. Moore RD, Griffiths RA, O'Brien CM, Murphy A, Jay D (2004) Induced defenses in an endangered amphibian in response to an introduced snake predator. Oecologia 141: 139-147.
29. Pearl CA, Adams MJ, Schuytema GS, Nebeker AV (2003) Behavioral responses of anuran larvae to chemical cues of native and introduced predators in the Pacific Northwestern United States. J Herpetol 37(3): 572-576.
30. Petranka JW, Kats LB, Sih A (1987) Predator-prey interactions among fish and larval amphibians: use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish. Anim Behav 35: 420-425.
31. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82(2): 523-540.
32. Relyea RA (2002) Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol Monogr 72(4): 523-540.
33. Relyea RA (2004) Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85(1): 172-179.
34. Relyea RA (2005) The heritability of inducible defenses in tadpoles. J Evol Biol 18: 856-866.
35. Riegel JA (1959) The systematics and distribution of crayfishes in California. Calif Fish Game 45(1): 29-50.
36. Riley SPD, Busteed GT, Kats LB, Vandergon TL, Lee LFS, Dagit RG, Kerby JL, Fisher RL, Sauvajot RM (2005) Effects of urbanization on the distribution and abundance of amphibians and invasive species in Southern California streams. Conserv Biol 19(6): 1894-1907.
37. Rodda GH, Fritts TH, Chiszar D (1997) The disappearance of Guam's wildlife. Bioscience 47: 565-574.
38. Rohlf FJ (2009, 2010) TPS software series. Distributed by the author. Department of ecology and evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.
39. Salo P, Korpimaki E, Banks PB, Nordstrom M, Dickman CR (2007) Alien predators are more dangerous than native predators to prey populations. Proc R Soc B 274: 1237-1243.
40. Schlaepfer MA, Sherman PW, Blossey B, Runge MC (2005) Introduced species as evolutionary traps. Ecol Lett 8: 241-246.
41. Schluter D (1988) Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42(5): 849-861.
42. Sheets HD (2003) IMP-Integrated Morphometrics Package. Department of Physics, Canisius College, Buffalo.
43. Skelly DK (1992) Field evidence for a cost of behavioral antipredator response in a larval amphibian. Ecology 73(2): 704-708.
44. Stebbins RC (2003) Western reptiles and amphibians, 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin, New York.
45. Stinchcombe JR, Agrawal AF, Hohenlohe PA, Arnold SJ, Blows MW (2008) Estimating nonlinear selection gradients using quadratic regression coefficients: double or nothing? Evolution 62: 2435-2440.
46. van Buskirk J (2000) The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 81(10): 2813-2821.
47. van Buskirk J (2009) Natural variation in morphology of larval amphibians: phenotypic plasticity in nature? Ecol Monogr 79(4): 681-705.
48. van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51(6): 1983-1992.
49. van Buskirk J, Anderwald P, Lupold S, Reinhardt L, Schuler H (2003) The lure effect, tadpole tail shape, and the target of dragonfly strikes. J Herpetol 37(2): 420-424.
50. Watkins TB (1996) Predator-mediated selection on burst swimming performance in tadpoles of the Pacific tree frog, Pseudacris regilla. Physiol Zool 69(1): 154-167.
51. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48(8): 607-615.
52. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier Academic Press, London.