Literature DB >> 28569036

"KIN RECOGNITION" AMONG SPADEFOOT TOAD TADPOLES: A SIDE-EFFECT OF HABITAT SELECTION?

David W Pfennig1.   

Abstract

Many animals modify their behavior toward unfamiliar conspecifics as a function of their genetic relatedness. A fundamental problem of any kin recognition study is determining what is being recognized and why. For anuran tadpoles, the predominant view is that associating with relatives is kin-selected because these relatives may thereby accrue benefits through increased growth or predation avoidance. An alternative view is that kin associations are simply a side-effect of habitat selection and thus do not represent attempts to identify kin per se. In the laboratory, spadefoot toad tadpoles (Scaphiopus multiplicatus) preferentially associated with unfamiliar siblings over unfamiliar nonsiblings, as do other anurans. However, same age tadpoles also were more likely to orient toward unfamiliar nonsiblings reared on the same food (familiar food) than toward unfamiliar siblings that were reared on unfamiliar food. These results, together with the results of previous tadpole kin recognition studies, suggest that tadpoles orient toward cues learned early in ontogeny, regardless of the cues' source. Tadpoles that preferentially associated with cues learned from their environment at birth would tend to be philopatric. Censuses of 14 natural ponds revealed that tadpole density remained greatest near oviposition sites until four days before metamorphosis. Tadpole philopatry may be advantageous: tadpoles restricted to their natal site had greater growth and survivorship than did their siblings restricted to randomly selected sites elsewhere within the same pond. Thus kin affiliative tendency observed in the laboratory in this and perhaps other species of anurans may be a byproduct of habitat selection. Since kin discrimination in animals is most commonly assayed as orientation toward kin, it follows that many examples of "kin recognition" may not represent true attempts to identify kin as such, but rather may reflect some other recognition system that is under entirely different selective pressures. © 1990 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Year:  1990        PMID: 28569036     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb03805.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  7 in total

1.  The ontogeny of kin recognition in tadpoles of the toad Bufo melanostictus (Anura; bufonidae).

Authors:  S K Saidapur; S Girish
Journal:  J Biosci       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Kin recognition by larval wood frogs (Rana sylvatica): effects of diet and prior exposure to conspecifics.

Authors:  George J Gamboa; Keith A Berven; Randy A Schemidt; Thomas G Fishwild; Kelli M Jankens
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Plasticity for the kin and conspecific preferences in the frog tadpoles (Rana ornativentris).

Authors:  Kazuko Hase; Nobuyuki Kutsukake
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 2.899

4.  Diversity and relatedness enhance survival in colour polymorphic grasshoppers.

Authors:  Sofia Caesar; Magnus Karlsson; Anders Forsman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Vortex Formation and Foraging in Polyphenic Spadefoot Toad Tadpoles.

Authors:  Sepideh Bazazi; Karin S Pfennig; Nils Olav Handegard; Iain D Couzin
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.980

6.  Fathead minnows use chemical cues to discriminate natural shoalmates from unfamiliar conspecifics.

Authors:  G E Brown; R J Smith
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 7.  Causes and consequences of individual variation in animal movement.

Authors:  Allison K Shaw
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 3.600

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.