Prey Capture by Dragonfly Larvae (Odonata; Anisoptera)

Pritchard, Gordon

doi:10.1139/z65-026

Cited by 170 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The red and black in the tail of induced H. chrysoscelis could serve as defensive coloration or camouflage (Cott 1940;Endler 1978). Pritchard (1965) found that larval Aeshna dragonflies are attracted by, and strike at, erratically moving dummies within the size range of Hyla tail spots. In a field study, Acris tadpoles having black-tipped tails showed more predator-inflicted tail damage than tadpoles with plain tails (Caldwell 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A PREDATOR‐INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.-The phenotypes of gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) tadpoles vary depending on whether predators are present in the pond. Tadpoles reared in ponds with predatory dragonfly larvae are relatively inactive compared with tadpoles in predator-free ponds, and have relatively large, brightly colored tailfins with dark spots along the margins. Models for the evolution of plasticity predict that induced phenotypes such as this should confer high fitness relative to the typical phenotype when in the presence of predators, but should be costly when the predator is absent. Our study tested for the predicted fitness trade-off in H. chrysoscelis by first rearing tadpoles in mesocosms under conditions that induce the alternate phenotypes, and then comparing the performance of both phenotypes in both environments. We generated the two phenotypes by rearing tadpoles in 600-liter outdoor artificial ponds that contained either two caged dragonflies (Anax junius) or an empty cage. Tadpoles from the two environments showed significantly different behavior, tail shape, and tail color within two weeks of exposure. We compared the growth and survival of both phenotypes over four weeks in ponds where there was no actual risk of predation. Under these conditions, both phenotypes grew at the same rate, but the predator-induced phenotype had significantly lower survival than the typical phenotype, indicating that induced tadpoles suffered greater mortality from causes other than odonate predation. We tested the susceptibility of both phenotypes to predation by exposing them to dragonflies in 24-h predation trials. The predator-induced phenotype showed a significant survival advantage in these trials. These results confirm that the predator-induced phenotype in H. chrysoscelis larvae is associated with fitness costs and benefits that explain why the defensive phenotype is induced rather than constitutive.Key words.-Amphibian, anti predator behavior, Hyla chrysoscelis, inducible defense, morphometry, phenotypic plasticity, polyphenism, predation, trade-off.Received October 17, 1994. Accepted May 9, 1995 Much research on inducible defenses against predators and herbivores is directed toward measuring the fitness of the defensive phenotype, relative to the typical phenotype, in the presence and absence of predation (Kreuger and Dodson 1981;Lively 1986a;Appleton and Palmer 1988;Karban 1993). These costs and benefits are critical because they prove that the phenotype is defensive, and they help explain why the phenotype is inducible rather than constitutive (always present). Models predict that inducible defenses should evolve only when the defensive phenotype is beneficial if expressed in the presence of consumers, but costly in their absence (Lively 1986a;Edelstein-Keshet and Rausher 1989;Baldwin et al. 1990;Clark and Harvell 1992). If the phenotype does not serve a defensive function it will not be favored by selection, and if there is no fitness cost to expressing the anti-predator phenotype in the absence of predators then all ind...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A PREDATOR‐INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prey detection by aquatic predators is predominately tactile and visual; use of olfactory cues as main signals is uncommon and apparently absent in many metazoans (Greene, 1983;Peckarsky, 1984) but common in protists (Montagnes et al, 2008). Concurrent use of mechanical and visual stimuli is, however, common and their relative importance can change during ontogeny (Pritchard, 1965).…”

Section: Predator Foraging Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sit-and-wait predators and stalkers forage on moving prey; this behaviour is often linked to further behavioural or morphological adaptation enabling a fast strike (e.g., rapid protraction of the modified labium in dragonfly larvae: Pritchard, 1965). Active predators can be further classified by the geometry of movement (Čech and Kubečka, 2002;Jakobsen et al, 2005), which may have significant impact on predation rates.…”

Section: Predator Foraging Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…burrows in benthic species and larval cases in caddisflies. Immobilization and thanatosis are efficient against predators that rely on movement stimuli (Pritchard, 1965) and may also allow prey to confuse the predator and subsequently escape (Hellsten et al, 1999;Gyssels and Stoks, 2005;Scarton et al, 2009). Behavioural responses may vary between and within taxa; recent research has linked intraspecific variation in prey vulnerability and defensive behaviour to behavioural syndromes (Sih et al, 2004).…”

Section: Prey Vulnerability Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trait- and size-based descriptions of trophic links in freshwater food webs: current status and perspectives

Boukal

2014

J Limnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Odonate nymphs and dytiscid larvae are visual predators -dytiscids are good swimmers and divers, but mostly prefer to feed close to the substrate (Tate and Hershey, 2003), whereas odonates sit and wait on the substrate and devour any passing prey (Pritchard, 1964(Pritchard, , 1965Smith and Pritchard, 1968; review by Batzer and Wissinger, 1996). Results from prior laboratory feeding experiments and gut content analyses of the dominant toppredators in Vandorf Pond are described in Febria et al (2005) -from these experiments we knew that the dytiscid larvae and Sympetrum nymphs in Vandorf Pond feed on ostracods, cladocerans, chironomids, culicids, nematodes, oligochaetes, leeches, dytiscid larvae, odonates, mites, algae, detritus, fungi, and leaf-and plant material.…”

Section: Manipulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down control by insect predators in an intermittent pond – a field experiment

Magnússon

Williams

2009

Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The role of predation in the regulation of freshwater communities is predicted to decrease along a habitat-duration gradient, from permanent to episodic waters. We tested the role of invertebrate predation in shaping the community structure in a fishless temperate intermittent pond with a three month long hydroperiod by comparing the community structure in two large field enclosures (4.2 m 2 ) with added predators to two enclosures without added predators. The added predators reflected the density and composition of top predators in the pond and comprised weekly additions of dytiscid larvae (for three weeks) followed by weekly additions of odonate nymphs (for five weeks). Compared with the enclosure controls, the predator addition enclosures had fewer dipterans and crustaceans, higher concentrations of benthic ciliates and other protozoans, higher chlorophyll a and bacterial counts, and lower abundance of rotifers. Many treatment effects were temporally variable and this appeared to be linked to predator identity, predator size, and prey availability. Compared with the surrounding pondwater, the enclosed areas had lower abundance of molluscs, ostracods and cladocerans but higher abundance of cyclopoids and higher concentrations of phytoplankton and ciliates. Despite high productivity and seasonally variable predator and prey assemblages, which likely buffered against strong top-down control, we conclude that the top-predators regulate the dipterans and zooplankton in this intermittent pond and that the effects propagated down through the food web to lower trophic levels.

show abstract

Prey Capture by Dragonfly Larvae (Odonata; Anisoptera)

Cited by 170 publications

References 3 publications

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A PREDATOR‐INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS

COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A PREDATOR‐INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS

Trait- and size-based descriptions of trophic links in freshwater food webs: current status and perspectives

Top-down control by insect predators in an intermittent pond – a field experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About