Visual cues contribute to predator detection in anuran larvae

Abstract

The ability of prey to detect predators directly affects their probability of survival. Chemical cues are known to be important for predator detection in aquatic environments, but the role of other potential cues is controversial. We tested for changes in behaviour of Rana temporaria tadpoles in response to chemical, visual, acoustic, and hydraulic cues originating from dragonfly larvae (Aeshna cyanea) and fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus). The greatest reduction in tadpole activity occurred when all cues were available, but activity was also significantly reduced by visual cues only. We did not find evidence for tadpoles lowering their activity in response to acoustic and hydraulic cues. There was no spatial avoidance of predators in our small experimental containers. The results show that anuran larvae indeed use vision for predator detection, while acoustic and hydraulic cues may be less important. Future studies of predator-induced responses of tadpoles should not only concentrate on chemical cues but also consider visual stimuli.

The relative importance of prey-borne and predator-borne chemical cues for inducible antipredator responses in tadpoles

“…1 changes in morphology may only develop in the presence of predator-borne cues (Van Buskirk and Arioli 2002; for further references see above). Also, predator recognition may involve learning in some prey species or in the presence of some predator species [damselflies (Wisenden et al 1997); fishes (Brown 2003); tadpoles (Gonzalo et al 2007;Fraker 2009;Chivers and Ferrari 2013)], whereas it must be at least partly innate in many other prey or in relation to other types of predators [snails (Turner 1996); fishes (Vilhunen and Hirvonen 2003); tadpoles (Petranka and Hayes 1998;Schoeppner and Relyea 2005;Hettyey et al 2012;this study)]. …”

“…Each mesocosm was fitted with a predator cage made of opaque plastic tube; a double net bottom allowed free exchange of chemical cues while preventing predators from injuring focal tadpoles. Visual and tactile cues may also play a role in predator detection (Stauffer and Semlitsch 1993;Hettyey et al 2012), but chemical cues seem to be the most important for tadpoles, and strong antipredator responses have been reported when only chemical cues were available to focal individuals (Stauffer and Semlitsch 1993;Ferland-Raymond et al 2010;Winkler and Van Buskirk 2012). The experimental animals were hatched from eggs deposited in captivity by ten pairs of adult R. temporaria collected at a pond near Vienna (48°13′N, 16°17′E).…”

The evolution of vertebrate eye size across an environmental gradient: phenotype does not predict genotype in a Trinidadian killifish

“…; Hettyey et al. ), and other visually driven behaviors that are both directly and indirectly related to fitness (Dobberfuhl et al. ; Thomas et al.…”

Spatially heterogeneous selection in nature favors phenotypic plasticity in anuran larvae

“…Predator chemicals persist 8-40 h in lentic habitats (Van Buskirk et al 2014) and diffuse as much as 0.5-2 m (Turner and Montgomery 2003;Wisenden 2008;Takahara et al 2012). Indeed, many experiments detect strong spatial avoidance of predators, illustrating that amphibian larvae are sensitive to fine-scale spatial variation in risk (Stauffer and Semlitsch 1993;Relyea 2001;Hettyey et al 2012; this study). 5B; Van Buskirk 2009).…”