Predation cost of rapid growth: behavioural coupling and physiological decoupling

Stoks, Robby; Block, Marjan De; Meutter, Frank Van de; Johansson, Frank

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00969.x

Cited by 203 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…My results also support studies that show that physiological responses, such as digestion or gut evacuation can decouple growth from behaviour responses (McPeek, 2004;Stoks et al, 2005). The fact that predator-exposed tadpoles ingest similar amounts of food and evacuate food at a higher rate but do not show increased growth rates, survival or development, might indicate that exposed tadpoles convert evacuated food at a lower rate into body mass, i.e.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…One predatorinduced defence is reduced activity, which proved to be one of the most efficient behavioural defences in several previous studies, in which reduced activity resulted in reduced encounter rates with predators, decreased detection by predators, and increased time spent hiding and seeking shelter (Werner & Anholt, 1993;Lefcort, 1996;Stoks et al, 2003;Stoks et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fact that predator-exposed tadpoles ingest similar amounts of food and evacuate food at a higher rate but do not show increased growth rates, survival or development, might indicate that exposed tadpoles convert evacuated food at a lower rate into body mass, i.e. they show lower growth efficiency, similar to damselfly larvae (Stoks et al, 2005). Another study on damselfly larvae showed that despite no difference in ingestion or assimilation rate, more active species were able to convert food more efficiently into body mass in a predator environments (McPeek, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Linking antipredator behaviour, ingestion, gut evacuation and costs of predator-induced responses in tadpoles

Steiner

2007

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many prey organisms reduce their activity to reduce predation risk. A common argument is that a reduction in activity is one of the highest costs of defence. I exposed predator-induced and predator-naive morphs to a short-term predator environment and recorded behavioural, life-historical, physiological, and morphological responses. In contrast to expectation, reduced activity was not one of the highest costs of responding to predators. Predator-exposed tadpoles ingested the same amount of food with less feeding effort and evacuated food from their guts at a higher rate. Despite these advantages, predator-exposed tadpoles still paid costs in responding to predators, in decreased development rate. They did not have reduced survival or reduced growth. Costs in responding to predators are probably caused by physiological factors, such as reduced conversion rates, increased metabolic rates or by allocation to morphological defences, such as increased tail depth. My results show that feeding activity is not linked to the amount of food ingested and that physiological mechanisms, such as gut evacuation, decouple feeding activity and ingestion from growth, development and survival. There was no adaptive response in gut morphology. My study improves the understanding of the underlying internal and physiological mechanisms mediating the tradeoff between activity and costs of predator-induced defences. Many prey organisms reduce their activity to reduce predation risk. A common argument is that a reduction in activity is one of the highest costs of defence. Here, I report an experiment that exposes predator-induced and predator-naïve morphs to a short-term predator environment and record behavioural, life-historical, physiological, and morphological responses. In contrast to expectation, reduced activity is not one of the highest costs of responding to predators. Predator-exposed tadpoles ingested the same amount of food with less feeding effort and evacuated food from their guts at a higher rate. Despite these advantages, predator-exposed tadpoles still paid costs in responding to predators, in decreased development rate. They did not have reduced survival or reduced growth. Costs in responding to predators are likely caused by physiological factors, such as reduced conversion rates, increased metabolic rates or by allocation to morphological defences, such as increased tail depth. My results show that feeding activity is not linked to the amount of food ingested and that physiological mechanisms -such as gut evacuation-decouple feeding activity and ingestion from growth, development and survival. There was no adaptive response in gut morphology. My study improves the understanding of the underlying internal and physiological mechanisms mediating the trade-off between activity and costs of predatorinduced defences.Key-words: Anura, assimilation, feeding activity, growth/predation risk trade-off, phenotypic plasticity, Rana lessonae, physiological plasticity, digestion efficiency.-3 -Steiner Many prey organisms ex...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Linking antipredator behaviour, ingestion, gut evacuation and costs of predator-induced responses in tadpoles

Steiner

2007

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is often difficult in behavioural studies, which may account for the relative paucity of data. Although there are few studies, evidence for growth-mortality trade-offs has been documented in a wide variety of taxa including damselflies (Stoks et al 2005), rainbow trout (Biro et al 2004(Biro et al , 2006 and house mice, Mus musculus (Biro & Stamps 2008). However, our study shows that correlations among behavioural and growth traits do not necessarily provide evidence of growth-mortality trade-offs and that spatial and temporal variation in the direction of growth-selective processes might be sufficient to produce both consistent variability in growth patterns among individuals and submaximal growth rates of populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This occurred because fast-growing fish were more likely to use habitats that were more productive in terms of food resources, but placed the fast-growing fish at greater risk of predation than the habitats used by slow-growing individuals (Biro et al 2006). Such trade-offs are thought to explain the evolution of submaximal growth rates in wild populations of fishes (Biro et al 2004(Biro et al , 2006 and other animals (Stoks et al 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%