Literature DB >> 16323018

Population divergence in growth rate and antipredator defences in Rana arvalis.

Anssi Laurila1, Susanna Pakkasmaa, Juha Merilä.   

Abstract

Growth and development rates often differ among populations of the same species, yet the factors maintaining this differentiation are not well understood. We investigated the antipredator defences and their efficiency in two moor frog Rana arvalis populations differing in growth and development rates by raising tadpoles in outdoor containers in the nonlethal presence and absence of three different predators (newt, fish, dragonfly larva), and by estimating tadpole survival in the presence of free-ranging predators in a laboratory experiment. Young tadpoles in both populations reduced activity in the presence of predators and increased hiding behaviour in the presence of newt and fish. Older tadpoles from the slow-growing Gotland population (G) had stronger hiding behaviour and lower activity in all treatments than tadpoles from the fast-growing Uppland population (U). However, both populations showed a plastic behavioural response in terms of reduced activity. The populations differed in induced morphological defences especially in response to fish. G tadpoles responded with relatively long and deep body, short tail and shallow tail muscle, whereas the responses in U tadpoles were often the opposite and closer to the responses induced by the other predators. U tadpoles metamorphosed earlier, but at a similar size to G tadpoles. There was no evidence that growth rate was affected by predator treatments, but tadpoles metamorphosed later and at larger size in the predator treatments. G tadpoles survived better in the presence of free-ranging predators than U tadpoles. These results suggest that in these two populations, low growth rate was linked with low activity and increased hiding, whereas high growth rate was linked with high activity and less hiding. The differences in behaviour may explain the difference in survival between the populations, but other mechanisms (i.e. differences in swimming speed) may also be involved. There appears to be considerable differentiation in antipredator responses between these two R. arvalis populations, as well as with respect to different predators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16323018     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-005-0301-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  26 in total

1.  Phenotypic lability and the evolution of predator-induced plasticity in tadpoles.

Authors:  J Van Buskirk
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Delayed costs of an induced defense in tadpoles? Morphology, hopping, and development rate at metamorphosis.

Authors:  J Van Buskirk; G Saxer
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Geographic variation in competitive ability in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  A C James; L Partridge
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences.

Authors:  Nancy M Schoeppner; Rick A Relyea
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 9.492

5.  Phenotypic similarity and the evolutionary significance of countergradient variation.

Authors:  D O Conover; E T Schultz
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 17.712

6.  Escape behaviour and ultimate causes of specific induced defences in an anuran tadpole.

Authors:  C Teplitsky; S Plenet; J-P Léna; N Mermet; E Malet; P Joly
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.411

7.  Tadpoles' responses to risk of fish introduction.

Authors:  C Teplitsky; S Plénet; P Joly
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2002-11-27       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  GENE FLOW AND INEFFECTIVE ANTIPREDATOR BEHAVIOR IN A STREAM-BREEDING SALAMANDER.

Authors:  Andrew Storfer; Andrew Sih
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A PREDATOR-INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS.

Authors:  S Andy McCollum; Josh Van Buskirk
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Bulgy tadpoles: inducible defense morph.

Authors:  Osamu Kishida; Kinya Nishimura
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 3.225

View more
  10 in total

1.  Invasive predatory crayfish do not trigger inducible defences in tadpoles.

Authors:  Ivan Gomez-Mestre; Carmen Díaz-Paniagua
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Warmer temperatures reduce the costs of inducible defences in the marine toad, Rhinella marinus.

Authors:  Vincent O van Uitregt; Lesley A Alton; Jaime Heiniger; R S Wilson
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.200

3.  Partitioning the non-consumptive effects of predators on prey with complex life histories.

Authors:  Jon M Davenport; Blake R Hossack; Winsor H Lowe
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 3.225

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

Authors:  Attila Hettyey; Zoltán Tóth; Kerstin E Thonhauser; Joachim G Frommen; Dustin J Penn; Josh Van Buskirk
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Multifarious selection through environmental change: acidity and predator-mediated adaptive divergence in the moor frog (Rana arvalis).

Authors:  Andrés Egea-Serrano; Sandra Hangartner; Anssi Laurila; Katja Räsänen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Coevolution of foraging behavior with intrinsic growth rate: risk-taking in naturally and artificially selected growth genotypes of Menidia menidia.

Authors:  Susumu Chiba; Stephen A Arnott; David O Conover
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Phenotypic divergence of the common toad (Bufo bufo) along an altitudinal gradient: evidence for local adaptation.

Authors:  E Luquet; J-P Léna; C Miaud; S Plénet
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Alarm substance induced behavioral responses in zebrafish (Danio rerio).

Authors:  Natasha Speedie; Robert Gerlai
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2007-11-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Plastic responses of a sessile prey to multiple predators: a field and experimental study.

Authors:  Philipp Emanuel Hirsch; David Cayon; Richard Svanbäck
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Short-term responses of Rana arvalis tadpoles to pH and predator stress: adaptive divergence in behavioural and physiological plasticity?

Authors:  Nicholas Scaramella; Jelena Mausbach; Anssi Laurila; Sarah Stednitz; Katja Räsänen
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 2.230

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.