Advertisement

Nursery crowding does not influence offspring, but might influence parental, fitness in a phytotelm-breeding frog

  • Emily S. Khazan
  • Tom Verstraten
  • Michael P. Moore
  • Matthew B. DugasEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

One way parents shape the fitness prospects of their offspring is by providing a nursery. When parents divide a brood across several nurseries, they must assess not only the costs and benefits of multiple nurseries, but also the optimal proportion of the brood to deposit in each. Here, we explored the factors shaping these decisions in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio), a species that typically, but not always, deposits its offspring singly in small phytotelmata. By monitoring occupancy and tadpole success in an artificial phytotelm array used by a free-living population, we tested for preferences for nursery size and height, asked whether multi-tadpole deposition was non-random with respect to these factors, and assessed the fitness consequences of these decisions. Parents were equally likely to use all types of artificial phytotelmata, but multi-tadpole depositions occurred almost exclusively in large nurseries. The probability that a tadpole would complete metamorphosis was unrelated to the physical characteristics of the rearing site, and individual tadpole survival was equivalent regardless of whether the nursery held one, two, or three tadpoles. Multi-tadpole nurseries were more likely, therefore, to have one occupant surviving to independence (metamorphosis). Although tadpoles are usually deposited alone, O. pumilio mothers may benefit from the insurance function played by additional tadpoles in a nursery.

Significance statement

While most animals that care for their young provide a single nursery for their entire brood, a few separate and rear each brood member in an individual nursery. In such cases, parents must decide not only which nurseries to use, but also how many young they should deposit into each. Here, we explore the factors shaping these decisions in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio), a species that typically, but not always, rears its young individually in small water-filled leaf axils. While O. pumiliodo not appear to choose nurseries based on size, parents were more likely to deposit multiple tadpoles into larger nurseries. Additionally, because the number of tadpoles in a nursery did not influence likelihood of metamorphic success for each individual, nurseries that contained multiple tadpoles were more likely to produce at least one offspring that completed metamorphosis. These results highlight the fitness effects of plasticity in reproductive strategies, and the possibility of divergent parent and offspring fitness optima.

Keywords

Dendrobatidae Insurance hypothesis Nursery Parental care Phytotelmata 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Charlotte Foale and Manuel Arias for logistical support. Gijs Bouwemeester, David Boeren, Emily Simmonds, Jess Sutton, and Nick Humphreys assisted with field work. Alexander T. Baugh and two anonymous reviewers provided comments that greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Funding information

The Canadian Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation provided partial funding for this work, and support was also provided by HAS Hogeschool’s internship program for the biological sciences (to TV).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones of Costa Rica approved all methods and issued the appropriate permit (ACTO-PIN-014-2015).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

265_2019_2642_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (40 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 40 kb)

References

  1. van Alphen JJM, Visser ME (1990) Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect parasitoids. Annu Rev Entomol 35:59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barclay MR (1988) Variation in the costs, benefits, and frequency of nest reuse by barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Auk 105:53–60Google Scholar
  3. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2008) Divergence in parental care, habitat selection, and larval life history between two species of Peruvian poison frogs: an experimental analysis. J Evol Biol 21:1534–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2010) A key ecological trait drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat 175:436–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brust DG (1990) Maternal brood care by Dedrobates pumilio: a frog that feeds its young. PhD dissertation. Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  6. Buxton VL, Sperry JH (2017) Reproductive decisions in anurans: a review of how predation and competition affects the deposition of eggs and tadpoles. BioScience 67:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cayuela H, Lengagne T, Kaufmann B, Joly P, Léna JP (2016) Larval competition risk shapes male-male competition and mating behaviour in an anuran. Behav Ecol:1726–1733Google Scholar
  8. Donnelly MA (1989) Effects of resource supplementation on space-use patterns in Dendrobates pumilio. Oecologia 81:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dugas MB (2018) Simple observations with complex implications: what we have learned and can learn about parental care from a frog that feeds its young. Zool Anz 273:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dugas MB, Wamelink CL, Killius AM, Richards-Zawacki CL (2016a) Parental care is beneficial for offspring, costly for mothers, and limited by family size in an egg-feeding frog. Behav Ecol 27:476–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dugas MB, Stynoski J, Strickler SA (2016b) Larval aggression is independent of food limitation in nurseries of a poison frog. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1389–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dugas MB, Moore MP, Martin RA, Richards-Zawacki CL, Sprehn CG (2016c) The pay-offs of maternal care increase as offspring develop, favouring extended provisioning in an egg-feeding frog. J Evol Biol 29:1977–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dugas MB, Strickler SA, Stynoski JL (2017) Tadpole begging reveals high quality. J Evol Biol 30:1024–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fincke O (1999) Organization of predator assemblages in Neotropical tree holes: effects of abiotic factors and priority. Ecol Entomol 24:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gomez-Mestre I, Pyron RA, Wiens JJ (2012) Phylogenetic analyses reveal unexpected patterns in the evolution of reproductive modes in frogs. Evolution 66:3687–3700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  18. Holdridge LR (1971) Forest environments in tropical life zones. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khazan ES, Bright EG, Beyer JE (2015) Land management impacts on tree hole invertebrate communities in a Neotropical rainforest. J Insect Conserv 19:681–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khazan ES, Arias M, Fernández LM (2016) Large mammal community composition under a disturbance gradient in Northeast Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 64:1553–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehtinen RM (ed) (2004) Ecology and evolution of phytotelm-breeding anurans. Misc Publ Mus Zool Univ Mich 193:1–73Google Scholar
  23. Lewis LT, Grant P, Garćia Quesada M, Ryall C, LaDuke TC (2010) A botanical survey of Caño Palma Biological Station (Estación Biológica Caño Palma), Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Brenesia 73(74):73–84Google Scholar
  24. Magnusson WE, Hero JB (1991) Predation and the evolution of complex oviposition behaviour in Amazon rainforest frogs. Oecologia 86:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maple MM (2002) Maternal effects on offspring fitness in Dendrobates pumilio, the strawberry poison frog. PhD dissertation. University of Kentucky, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. McKeon CS, Summers K (2013) Predator driven reproductive behavior in a tropical frog. Evol Ecol 27:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meuche I, Linsenmair E, Prӧhl E (2011) Female territoriality in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Copeia 2011:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mock DW (1985) Siblicidal brood reduction: they prey-size hypothesis. Am Nat 125:327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mock DW, Forbes LS (1995) The evolution of parental optimism. Trends Ecol Evol 10:130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mock DW, Parker GA (1997) The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Morey S, Reznick D (2000) A comparative analysis of plasticity in larval development in three species of spadefoot toads. Ecology 81:1736–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poelman EH, Dicke M (2007) Offering offspring as food to cannibals: oviposition strategies of Amazonian poison frogs (Dendrobates ventrimaculatus). Evol Ecol 21:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poelman EH, van Wijngaarden RPA, Raaijmakers CE (2013) Amazon poison frogs (Ranitomeya amazonica) use different phytotelm characteristics to determine their suitability for egg and tadpole depositions. Evol Ecol 27:661–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pröhl H, Berke O (2001) Spatial distributions of male and female strawberry poison frogs and their relation to female reproductive success. Oecologia 129:534–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pröhl H, Hödl W (1999) Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Refsnider JM, Janzen FJ (2010) Putting eggs in one basket: ecological and evolutionary hypotheses for variation in oviposition-site choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 41:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Resetaris WJ, Wilbur H (1989) Choice of oviposition site by Hyla chrysoscelis: role of predators and competitors. Ecology 70:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ringler E, Mangione R, Ringler M (2015) Where have all the tadpoles gone? Individual genetic tracking of amphibian larvae until adulthood. Mol Ecol Resour 15:737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ringler E, Szipl G, Harrigan RJ, Bartl-Binder P, Mangione R, Ringler M (2018) Hierarchical decision-making balances current and future reproductive success. Mol Ecol 27:2289–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rojas B (2014) Strange parental decisions: fathers of the dyeing poison frog deposit their tadpoles in pools occupied by large cannibals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Royle NJ, Smiseth PT, Köliker M (eds) (2012) The evolution of parental care. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan MJ, Barry DS (2011) Competitive interactions in phytotelmata—breeding pools of two poison-dart frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae) in Costa Rica. J Herpetol 45:438–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schulte LM (2010) Preference and competition for breeding plants in coexisting Ranitomeya species (Dendrobatidae): does height play a role? Salamandra 46:180–184Google Scholar
  44. Schulte LM, Yeager JD, Schulte R, Veith M, Werner P, Beck LA, Lӧtters S (2011) The smell of success: choice of larval rearing sites by means of chemical cues in a Peruvian poison frog. Anim Behav 81:1147–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwagmeyer PL, Mock DW (2008) Parental provisioning and offspring fitness: size matters. Anim Behav 75:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life-histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Stynoski JL, Shelton G, Stynoski P (2014) Maternally derived chemical defences are an effective deterrent against some predators of poison frog tadpoles (Oophaga pumilio). Biol Lett 10:20140187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Summers K, McKeon CS (2004) The evolutionary ecology of phytotelmata use in neotropical poison frogs. Misc Publ Mus Zool Univ Mich 193:55–73Google Scholar
  49. Touchon JC, Warkentin KM (2008) Reproductive mode plasticity: aquatic and terrestrial oviposition in a treefrog. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105:7495–7499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Caño Palma Biological Station, Canadian Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest ConservationLimónCosta Rica
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  4. 4.School of Biological SciencesIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations