Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 393–401 | Cite as

Effects of predation risk and hunger on the behaviour of two species of tadpoles

  • Peter Horat
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
Article

Abstract

Predation and hunger are threats for most organisms, and appropriate behavioural responses to both factors should be shaped by natural selection. In combination, however, the behavioural demands of predation avoidance and effective foraging often cannot be satisfied at the same time and lead to a conflict within organisms. We examined the behavioural responses of two closely-related species of tadpoles, Rana lessonae and R. esculenta, to simulated predation by fish and hunger. Tadpoles, hatched and reared in the laboratory, were tested in a three-way factorial (predation risk × hunger × species) experiment with four predation levels and four hunger levels. Both species decreased their swimming activity with increasing predation risk. Predation risk did not influence the amount of activity time invested in feeding but caused the tadpoles to spend less time in patches with food. Refuges were not used to avoid predation. R. esculenta was more sensitive to predation risk than R. lessonae. Hunger increased both the activity of tadpoles and the amount of activity time invested in feeding, thus indicating an increased energy intake. No interactions were observed between predation risk and hunger. These results show that tadpoles possess genetically-based behavioural mechanisms that allow them to respond in a graded manner to predation and hunger. However, they did not balance the two conflicting demands of predation avoidance and effective foraging; the two mechanisms appeared to act independently.

Key words

Amphibian Feeding Predation risk Predator avoidance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berger L (1977) Systematics and hybridization in the Rana esculenta complex. In: Taylor DH, Guttman SI (eds) The reproductive biology of amphibians. Plenum Press, New York, pp 367–388Google Scholar
  2. Berger L (1983) Western Palearctic water frogs (Amphibia, Ranidae): systematics, genetics, and population compositions. Experimentia 39:127–130Google Scholar
  3. Blankenhorn HJ (1977) Reproduction and mating behaviour in Rana lessonae-Rana esculenta mixed poulations. In: Taylor DH, Guttman SI (eds) The reproductive biology of amphibians. Plenum Press, New York, pp 389–410Google Scholar
  4. Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. Am Nat 121:552–561Google Scholar
  5. Dill LM, Fraser AHG (1984) Risk of predation and the feeding behaviour of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:65–71Google Scholar
  6. Dixon SM, Baker RL (1988) Effects of size on predation risk, behavioural response to fish, and cost of reduced feeding in larval Ischnura verticalis (Coenagrionidae: Odonata). Oecologia 76:200–205Google Scholar
  7. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  8. Graf JD, Polls-Pelaz M (1989) Evolutionary genetics of the Rana esculenta complex. In: Dawley RM, Bogart JP (eds) Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates (Museum Bulletin 466). New York State Museum, Albany, pp 289–302Google Scholar
  9. Horat P (1993) Effects of predation and hunger on the behaviour of tadpoles of the waterfrogs Rana esculenta and Rana lessonae. M.Sc. Thesis, University of ZurichGoogle Scholar
  10. Kats LB, Petranka JW, Sih A (1988) Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69:1865–1870Google Scholar
  11. Lawler SP (1989) Behavioural responses to predators and predation risk in four species of larval anurans. Anim Behav 38:1039–1047Google Scholar
  12. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency-predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165Google Scholar
  13. McPeek MA (1990) Behavioral differences between Enallagma species (Odonata) influencing differential vulnerability to predators. Ecology 71:1714–1726Google Scholar
  14. Metcalfe NB, Furness RW (1984) Changing priorities: the effect of pre-migratory fattening on the trade-off between foraging and vigilance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:203–206Google Scholar
  15. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  16. Petranka J, Kats LB, Sih A (1987) Predator-prey interactions among fish and larval amphibians: use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish. Anim Behav 35:420–425Google Scholar
  17. Pritchard G (1964) The prey of dragonfly (Odonata: Anisoptera) in ponds in northern Alberta. Can J Zool: 785–800 Rist L (1994) Differences in feeding time, consumption rate, and growth efficiency between hemiclonal and sexual tadpoles of the Rana esculenta complex. M.Sc. Thesis, University of ZurichGoogle Scholar
  18. Semlitsch RD, Reyer HU (1992) Modification of anti-predator behaviour in tadpoles by environmental conditioning. J Anim Ecol 61:353–360Google Scholar
  19. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  20. Sih A (1986) Antipredator responses and the perception of danger by mosquito larvae. Ecology 67:434–441Google Scholar
  21. Sih A (1987) Predator and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In: Kerfood WC, Sih A (eds) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 203–224Google Scholar
  22. Sih A (1992) Prey uncertainity and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. Am Nat 139:1052–1069Google Scholar
  23. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1980) Statistical methods, 7th edn. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  24. Stauffer H-P, Semlitsch RD (1993) Effects of visual, chemical, and tactile cues of fish on the behavioural responses of tadpoles. Anim Behav 46:355–364Google Scholar
  25. Stein RA, Magnusson JJ (1976) Behavioral response of crayfish to a fish predator. Ecology 57:751–761Google Scholar
  26. Tunner HG (1973) Das Albumin und andere Bluteiweisse bei Rana ridibunda P., Rana lessonae Camerano, Rana esculenta Linné und deren Hybriden. Z Zool Syst Evolutionsforsch 11:219–233Google Scholar
  27. Tunner HG (1979) The inheritence of morphology and electrophoretic markers from homotypic crosses of the hybridogenetic Rana esculenta. Mitt Zool Mus Berlin 55:89–109Google Scholar
  28. Wassersug RJ (1973) Aspects of social behavior in anuran larvae. In: Vial JL (ed) Evolutionary biology of the anurans. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, pp 273–297Google Scholar
  29. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1993) Ecological consequences of the tradeoff between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat 142:242–272Google Scholar
  30. Woodward BD (1983) Predator-prey interactions and breeding-pond use of temporary-pond species in a desert anuran community. Ecology 64:1549–1555Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Horat
    • 1
  • Raymond D. Semlitsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyUniversity of ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations