The effect of hunger on the strength and duration of the antipredator behavioral response of green frog (Rana clamitans) tadpoles

Fraker, Michael E.

doi:10.1007/s00265-008-0549-9

Cited by 30 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have shown that behavioural defences are reversible (i.e. individuals resume their activity when predation risk ceased, Sih 1992, Sih and McCarthy 2002, Van Buskirk 2002, Relyea 2003, Fraker 2008a, b), but the change in activity is usually detected after a moderately long time period. However, only a few studies have examined in fine detail the pattern of behavioural adjustment after predation conditions change.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, when predation risk ceases freshwater plankton species (i.e. water fleas, bryozoans), for example, revert the elongated spines and helmets developed in response to predator presence (Hanazato 1990, Mikulski et al 2005, Riessen and Trevett‐Smith 2009), snails reduce the thickness of the shell (Hoverman and Relyea 2007), amphibian larvae resume their activity and revert tail morphology to a non‐induced stage (Van Buskirk 2002, Relyea 2003, Kishida and Nishimura 2006, Fraker 2008a, b), and fish revert the induction of deeper bodies (Brönmark and Pettersson 1994, Chivers et al 2008). However, these responses are far from being uniform; reversibility could be limited to early stages in the ontogeny for both behaviour and morphology (Relyea 2003, Hoverman and Relyea 2007), and phenotypes could be only partially reversible and individuals may never fully recover the non‐defensive morph (Brönmark and Pettersson 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reversibility of predator‐induced plasticity and its effect at a life‐history switch point

Orizaola

Dahl

Laurila

2011

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In natural systems, organisms are frequently exposed to spatial and temporal variation in predation risk. Prey organisms are known to develop a wide array of plastic defences to avoid being eaten. If inducible plastic defences are costly, prey living under fluctuating predation risk should be strongly selected to develop reversible plastic traits and adjust their defences to the current predation risk. Here, we studied the induction and reversibility of antipredator defences in common frog Rana temporaria tadpoles when confronted with a temporal switch in predation risk by dragonfly larvae. We examined the behaviour and morphology of tadpoles in experimental treatments where predators were added or withdrawn at mid larval development, and compared these to treatments with constant absence or presence of predators. As previous studies have overlooked the effects that developing reversible anti‐predator responses could have later in life (e.g. at life history switch points), we also estimated the impact that changes in antipredator responses had on the timing of and size at metamorphosis. In the presence of predators, tadpoles reduced their activity and developed wider bodies, and shorter and wider tails. When predators were removed tadpoles switched their behaviour within one hour to match that found in the constant environments. The morphology matched that in the constant environments in one week after treatment reversal. All these responses were highly symmetrical. Short time lags and symmetrical responses for the induction/reversal of defences suggest that a strategy with fast switches between phenotypes could be favoured in order to maximise growth opportunities even at the potential cost of phenotypic mismatches. We found no costs of developing reversible responses to predators in terms of life‐history traits, but a general cost of the induction of the defences for all the individuals experiencing predation risk during some part of the larval development (delayed metamorphosis). More studies examining the reversibility of plastic defences, including other type of costs (e.g. physiological), are needed to better understand the adaptive value of these flexible strategies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversibility of predator‐induced plasticity and its effect at a life‐history switch point

Orizaola

Dahl

Laurila

2011

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sated treatment was fed shredded boiled spinach ad libitum, whereas the ‘hungry’ treatment was deprived of food for 24 h. This treatment sought to elicit symptoms of acute hunger, including risk‐prone foraging, while avoiding responses characteristic of tadpoles experiencing chronic malnutrition (e.g. Altwegg 2003; Fraker 2008). The following day, we dyed half of the tadpoles in each food level treatment (i.e.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Structural Refuge and Density on Foraging Behaviour and Mortality of Hungry Tadpoles Subject to Predation Risk

Hossie

Murray

2011

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretical models of prey behaviour predict that food‐limited prey engage in risk‐prone foraging and thereby succumb to increased mortality from predation. However, predation risk also may be influenced by factors including prey density and structural cover, such that the presumed role of prey hunger on predation risk may be obfuscated in many complex predator–prey systems. Using a tadpole (prey) – dragonfly larva (predator) system, we determined relative risk posed to hungry vs. sated prey when both density and structural cover were varied experimentally. Overall, prey response to perceived predation risk was primarily restricted to increased cover use, and hungry prey did not exhibit risk‐prone foraging. Surprisingly, hungry prey showed lower activity than sated prey when exposed to predation risk, perhaps indicating increased effort in search of refuge or spatial avoidance of predator cues among sated animals. An interaction between hunger level and predation risk treatments indicated that prey state affected sensitivity to perceived risk. We also examined the lethal implications of prey hunger by allowing predators to select directly between hungry and sated prey. Although predators qualitatively favoured hungry prey when density was elevated and structural cover was sparse, the overall low observed variation in mortality risk between hunger treatments suggests that preferential selection of hungry prey was weak. This implies that hunger effects on prey mortality risk may not be readily observed in complex landscapes with additional factors influencing risk. Thus, current starvation‐predation trade‐off theory may need to be broadened to account for other mechanisms through which undernourished prey may cope with predation risk.

show abstract

“…While there have been a great number of recent studies examining the responses of tadpoles to predators (Fraker 2008a,b; Sharma et al. 2008; Smith & Awan 2009 and references therein), few studies have examined how tadpoles respond to the simultaneous exposure to more than one type of predator, and the existing studies have found a variety of responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Sibship and the Presence of Multiple Predators on the Behavior of Green Frog (Rana clamitans) Tadpoles

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nature, prey are exposed to multiple predators simultaneously. We examined the effects of the cues of two potential predators, mosquitofish and odonate larvae, individually and in combination on the behavior of green frog (Rana clamitans) tadpoles. In addition to examining the behavioral response of green frog tadpoles to multiple predators, we examined variation in behavior among tadpoles from different egg masses (i.e. different sibships). Sibships differed in activity level and there was a significant predator cue by sibship interaction. Two sibships were relatively more active in the control and odonate predator cue treatments but showed reduced activity in treatments containing mosquitofish cues, whereas the remaining sibships showed consistently low levels of activity in all predator cue treatments, including the control. The use of the vegetated side of the aquarium did not differ between tadpoles exposed to the different predator cues. Sibship had no effect on tadpoles’ use of the vegetated side of the aquarium, and there was no interaction between sibship and predator cue. Our results suggest that green frogs did not respond to simultaneous exposure to multiple predator cues any differently than they did to exposure to individual predator cues. More importantly, our results suggest variation, possibly genetically based, in behavioral responses of tadpoles to predators, and thus selection on these behaviors is possible. Of particular interest is that there was variation in behavioral responses to a non‐native predator (Gambusia affinis), suggesting an evolutionary response to an invasive predator is possible.

show abstract

The effect of hunger on the strength and duration of the antipredator behavioral response of green frog (Rana clamitans) tadpoles

Cited by 30 publications

References 23 publications

Reversibility of predator‐induced plasticity and its effect at a life‐history switch point

Reversibility of predator‐induced plasticity and its effect at a life‐history switch point

Effects of Structural Refuge and Density on Foraging Behaviour and Mortality of Hungry Tadpoles Subject to Predation Risk

Effects of Sibship and the Presence of Multiple Predators on the Behavior of Green Frog (Rana clamitans) Tadpoles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About