Literature DB >> 17645010

Flexible defense strategies: competition modifies investment in behavioral vs. morphological defenses.

Céline Teplitsky1, Anssi Laurila.   

Abstract

Competition is predicted to affect the expression of inducible defenses, but because costs of behavioral and morphological antipredator defenses differ along resource gradients, its effects on defenses may depend on the traits considered. We tested the predictions from different defense models in tadpoles of the common frog Rana temporaria, which exhibit both types of defenses. In an outdoor experiment, we exposed the tadpoles to nonlethal predators (Aeshna dragonfly larvae) and to a gradient of intraspecific competition. Morphological responses did not follow any of the expected patterns, since investment in defense was not affected by resource level. Instead, tail depth decreased in the absence of predators. Behavioral defenses followed a state-dependent model. Overall, the defense strategy of the tadpoles revealed a shift from morphological and behavioral defenses at low tadpole density to morphological defense only at high density. This difference probably reflects the different efficiency of the defenses. Hiding is an effective means of defense, but it is unsustainable when resources are scarce. Morphological responses become more important with increasing density to compensate for the increase in behavioral risk-taking. Our results indicate that competition can strongly affect reaction norms of inducible defenses and highlight the importance of integrating ecological parameters that affect the cost-benefit balance of phenotypic plasticity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17645010     DOI: 10.1890/06-1703.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecology        ISSN: 0012-9658            Impact factor:   5.499


  8 in total

1.  You can't run but you can hide: refuge use in frog tadpoles elicits density-dependent predation by dragonfly larvae.

Authors:  Thomas John Hossie; Dennis L Murray
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  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

3.  Competition, predation and flow rate as mediators of direct and indirect effects in a stream food chain.

Authors:  S Blanchet; G Loot; J J Dodson
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Increased host aggression as an induced defense against slave-making ants.

Authors:  Tobias Pamminger; Inon Scharf; Pleuni S Pennings; Susanne Foitzik
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 2.671

5.  Costs of inducible defence along a resource gradient.

Authors:  Christer Brönmark; Thomas Lakowitz; P Anders Nilsson; Johan Ahlgren; Charlotte Lennartsdotter; Johan Hollander
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Investment into defensive traits by anuran prey (Lithobates pipiens) is mediated by the starvation-predation risk trade-off.

Authors:  Amanda M Bennett; David Pereira; Dennis L Murray
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The interaction between predation risk and food ration on behavior and morphology of Eurasian perch.

Authors:  Richard Svanbäck; Yinghua Zha; Christer Brönmark; Frank Johansson
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Why study plasticity in multiple traits? New hypotheses for how phenotypically plastic traits interact during development and selection.

Authors:  Matthew E Nielsen; Daniel R Papaj
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-03-20       Impact factor: 4.171

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.