Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 237–246 | Cite as

Is one defence enough? Disentangling the relative importance of morphological and behavioural predator-induced defences

  • Ben Dijk
  • Anssi Laurila
  • Germán Orizaola
  • Frank Johansson
Original Article


Many organisms show predator-induced behavioural and morphological phenotypic plasticity. These defence mechanisms are often expressed simultaneously. To estimate the relative importance of these two defences, we conducted a laboratory experiment using tadpoles of the common frog (Rana temporaria) as prey and Aeshna dragonfly larvae as predators. We first raised tadpoles in the presence and absence of caged predators to induce differences in defensive morphology, and then conducted free ranging predator trials in environments that were either with or without the presence of predation cues to induce differences in defensive behaviour. This 2 × 2 design allowed us to separate the effects of inducible morphology from inducible behaviour. Caged predators induced deeper bodies and tailfins and reduced activity levels in tadpoles. The time to first capture was shortest in tadpoles without morphological or behavioural defences. Tadpoles with a behavioural defence had a significantly longer time to first capture. Tadpoles with only antipredator morphology tended to have a longer time to first capture as compared to those without any induced defences. This treatment also had a higher number of injured tadpoles as compared to other treatments, suggesting that inducible morphology facilitates predator escape due to the ‘lure effect’. However, tadpoles with both behavioural and morphological defences did not have a longer time to first capture as compared to tadpoles with only morphological or behavioural induced defences. Our results suggest that both behavioural and morphological antipredator responses contribute to reduced capture efficiency by predators, but their simultaneous expression did not have any additive effect to the time of first capture and survival, and that the morphology response is most effective when tadpoles are active.


Morphological defence Phenotypic plasticity Antipredator behaviour Rana temporaria 



This research was made in collaboration between the HAS University of Applied Sciences of Den Bosch, the Netherlands and the Department of Ecology and Genetics at the Uppsala University, Sweden. The article is a revised version of an internship report published at the HAS University of Applied Sciences of Den Bosch, the Netherlands. Osama Almalik provided statistical advice. We thank Pablo Burraco Gaitán for his valuable advice for constructive comments on the manuscript. This research is supported by the Swedish Research Council (to AL).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

Applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the department and were approved by the Swedish Board of Agriculture (C21/14).

Supplementary material

265_2015_2040_MOESM1_ESM.docx (208 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 208 kb)


  1. Abràmoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Intern 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1983) Foraging time optimization and interactions in food webs. Am Nat 124:80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez D, Nicieza AG (2006) Factors determining tadpole vulnerability to predators: can prior experience compensate for a suboptimal shape? Evol Ecol 20:523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez D, Nicieza AG (2009) Differential success of prey escaping predators: tadpole vulnerability or predator selection? Copeia 2009:453–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altwegg R (2003) Hungry predators render predator-avoidance behavior in tadpoles ineffective. Oikos 100:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. APHA (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 16th edn. American Public Health Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair J, Wassersug RJ (2000) Variation in the pattern of predator-induced damage to tadpole tails. Copeia 2000:390–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdeau PE (2010) An inducible morphological defence is a passive by-product of behaviour in a marine snail. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:455–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdeau PE, Johansson F (2012) Predator-induced morphological defences as by-products of prey behaviour: a review and prospectus. Oikos 121:1175–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calsbeek R, Kuchta S (2011) Predator mediated selection and the impact of developmental stage on viability in wood frog tadpoles (Rana sylvatica). BMC Evol Biol 11:353PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayton GH, Saenz D, Baum KA, Langerhans BR, DeWitt TJ (2005) Body shape, burst speed and escape behavior of larval anurans. Oikos 111:582–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Hucko J (1999) Trait compensation and cospecialization in a freshwater snail: size, shape and antipredator behaviour. Anim Behav 58:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doherty PA, Wassersug RJ, Lee JM (1998) Mechanical properties of the tadpole tail fin. J Exp Biol 201:2691–2699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010) Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  16. Hettyey A, Rölli F, Thürlimann N, Zürcher A-C, Van Buskirk J (2012) Visual cues contribute to predator detection in anuran larvae. Biol J Linn Soc 106:820–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoff KVS, Wassersug RJ (2000) Tadpole locomotion: axial movement and tail functions in a largely vertebraeless verterbrate. Am Zool Res 40:62–76Google Scholar
  18. Hülsmann S, Wagner A (2007) Multiple defence strategies of Daphnia galeata against predation in a weakly stratified reservoir. Hydrobiologia 594:187–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson F (1991) Foraging modes in an assemblage of odonate larvae—effects of prey and interference. Hydrobiologia 209:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johansson F (1993) Diel feeding behaviour in larvae of four odonate species. J Insect Behav 6:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johansson F, Andersson J (2009) Scared fish get lazy, and lazy fish get fat. J Anim Ecol 78:772–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson JB, Burt DB, DeWitt TJ (2008) Form, function, and fitness: pathways to survival. Evolution 62:1243–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kraft PG, Franklin CE, Blows MW (2006) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles: extension or innovation? J Evol Biol 19:450–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurila A, Kujasalo J, Ranta E (1998) Predator-induced changes in life history in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Oikos 83:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laurila A, Lindgren B, Laugen AT (2008) Antipredator defenses along a latitudinal gradient in Rana temporaria. Ecology 89:1399–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCollum SA, Van Buskirk J (1996) Costs and benefits of a predator-induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution 50:583–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntyre PB, Baldwin S, Flecker AS (2004) Effects of behavioral and morphological plasticity on risk of predation in a neotropical tadpole. Oecologia 141:130–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mikolajewski DJ, Johansson F (2004) Morphological and behavioral defenses in dragonfly larvae: trait compensation and co-specialization. Behav Ecol 15:614–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nilsson PA, Brönmark C, Pettersson LB (1995) Benefits of a predator-induced morphology in crucian carp. Oecologia 104:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nunes AL, Cruz MJ, Tejedo M, Laurila A, Rebelo R (2010) Nonlethal injury caused by an invasive alien predator and its consequences for an anuran tadpole. Basic Appl Ecol 11:645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nunes AL, Orizaola G, Laurila A, Rebelo R (2014) Morphological and life-history responses of anurans to predation by an invasive crayfish: an integrative approach. Ecol Evol 4:1491–1503PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nunes AL, Richter-Boix A, Laurila A, Rebelo R (2013) Do anuran larvae respond behaviourally to chemical cues from an invasive crayfish predator? A community-wide study. Oecologia 171:115–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orizaola G, Dahl E, Laurila A (2012) Reversibility of predator-induced plasticity and its effect at a life-history switch point. Oikos 121:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Relyea RA (2004) Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rohlf FJ (2004) TpsSplin. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  37. Rohlf FJ (2007) TpsRelw. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  38. Rohlf FJ (2008) TpsDig2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony BrookGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rundle SD, Brönmark C (2001) Inter- and intraspecific trait compensation of defence mechanisms in freshwater snails. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1463–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2005) Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences. Ecol Lett 8:505–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2009) Interpreting the smells of predation: how alarm cues and kairomones induce different prey defences. Funct Ecol 23:1114–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sih A (1987) Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In: Sih A, Kerfoot WC (eds) Predation: Direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hannover, pp 203–224Google Scholar
  44. Smith DC, Van Buskirk J (1995) Phenotypic design, plasticity, and ecological performance in two tadpole species. Am Nat 145:211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stauffer H-P, Semlitsch RD (1993) Effects of visual, chemical and tactile cues of fish on the behavioural responses of tadpoles. Anim Behav 46:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steiner UK (2007) Investment in defense and cost of predator-induced defense along a resource gradient. Oecologia 152:201–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teplitsky C, Plenet S, Léna JP, Mermet N, Malet E, Joly P (2005) Escape behaviour and ultimate causes of specific induced defences in an anuran tadpole. J Evol Biol 18:180–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Buskirk J (2002) Phenotypic lability and the evolution of predator-induced plasticity in tadpoles. Evolution 56:361–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Buskirk J, Anderwald P, Lüpold S, Reinhardt L, Schuler H (2003) The lure effect, tadpole tail shape, and the target of dragonfly strikes. J Herpetol 37:192–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Buskirk J, Krügel A, Kunz J, Miss F, Stamm A (2014) The rate of degradation of chemical cues indicating predation risk: an experiment and review. Ethology 120:942–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA (2000) Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. J Evol Biol 13:336–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51:1983–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Buskirk J, Relyea RA (1998) Selection for phenotypic plasticity in Rana sylvatica tadpoles. Biol J Linn Soc 65:301–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1993) Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat 142:242–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilbur HM, Semlitsch RD (1990) Ecological consequences of tail injury in Rana tadpoles. Copeia 1990:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wisenden BD (2000) Olfactory assessment of predation risk in the aquatic environment. Philos T Roy Soc B 355:1205–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wishingrad V, Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2014) Behavioural and morphological defences in a fish with a complex antipredator phenotype. Anim Behav 95:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Dijk
    • 1
  • Anssi Laurila
    • 1
  • Germán Orizaola
    • 1
  • Frank Johansson
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Ecology, Department of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations