Advertisement

Polar Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 10, pp 1505–1513 | Cite as

Sex differences in age structure, growth rate and body size of common frogs Rana temporaria in the subarctic

  • Cécile PatrelleEmail author
  • Mårten B. Hjernquist
  • Anssi Laurila
  • Fredrik Söderman
  • Juha Merilä
Original Paper

Abstract

The thermal environment and length of the activity season are important factors in shaping life-history trait variation in ectotherms. Many ectothermic vertebrates living at high latitudes or altitudes tend to be larger and older than their conspecifics living at lower latitudes or altitudes. However, detailed data on age, body size and growth variation—and how they may differ between males and females—are still scarce, especially from extreme high-latitude environments. We studied growth (body length increment), age and size structure of common frogs (Rana temporaria) in subarctic Finland (69°04′N) by applying skeletochronological methods to individually marked adults (n = 169) captured and recaptured between 1999 and 2003. We found that breeding males were on average younger (mean = 8.5 years) than females (11.9 years) and that males started reproducing earlier (≥3–4 years of age) than females (>4–5 years). The oldest encountered individual was an 18-year-old female, which to our knowledge is the oldest wild common frog ever reported. Females were on average larger (mean body length = 76.6 mm) than males (70.7 mm), and this appeared to be mainly due to their older age as compared to males. While body length increased and growth rate decreased with age in both sexes, growth rate declined significantly faster with age in males than in females. The latter finding provides a proximate explanation for the observation that even after accounting for age differences among sexes (females > males), females were longer than males.

Keywords

Age Body size Longevity Rana temporaria Skeletochronology Subarctic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank University of Helsinki, LAPBIAT project, the Swedish Research Council and Academy of Finland for financial support during the time the data for this study were collected. Thanks are also due to various people who helped collecting the data, especially Jussi Alho, Gabor Herczeg, Oula Kalttopää, Kirsi Kähkönen, Karoliina Räsänen and Mattias Sterner. Comments by Johan Elmberg and anonymous reviewers improved an earlier draft of the manuscript. Jacquelin DeFaveri kindly corrected the English, and Peter Kullberg translated some important references. We are also grateful for the logistic support provided by the Kilpisjärvi Biological Station (University of Helsinki).

Supplementary material

300_2012_1190_MOESM1_ESM.doc (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 41 kb)

References

  1. Alho JS (2004) Population biology of the common frog in subarctic. MSc thesis, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  2. Alho JS, Herczeg G, Merilä J (2009) Female biased sex-ratios in subarctic common frogs. J Zool (Lond) 275:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alho JS, Matsuba C, Merilä J (2010) Sex reversal and primary sex ratios in the common frog (R. temporaria). Mol Ecol 19:1763–1773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angilletta MJ Jr, Steury TD, Sears MW (2004) Temperature, growth rate, and body size in ectotherms: fitting pieces of a life-history puzzle. Integr Comp Biol 44:498–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Augert D, Joly P (1993) Plasticity of age at maturity between two neighboring populations of the common frog (R. temporaria L.). Can J Zool 71:26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belk MC, Houston DD (2002) Bergmann’s rule in ectotherms: a test using freshwater fishes. Am Nat 160:803–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berven KA (1982) The genetic basis of altitudinal variation in the wood frog Rana sylvatica. I: an experimental analysis of life history traits. Evolution 36:962–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanckenhorn WU (2000) Temperature effects on egg size and their fitness consequences in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. Evol Ecol 14:627–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanckenhorn WU, Dermot M (2004) Bergmann and converse Bergmann latitudinal clines in arthropods: two ends of a continuum? Integr Comp Biol 44:413–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castanet J, Smirina I (1990) Introduction to the skeletochronological method in amphibians and reptiles. Ann Sci Nat Zool Biol 11:191–196Google Scholar
  11. Castanet J, Meunier FS, De Ricqles A (1977) L’enregistrement de la croissance cyclique par le tissue osseux chez les vertébrés poikilothermes données comparatives et essai de synthèse. Bull Biol Fr Belg 111:183–202Google Scholar
  12. Elmberg J (1987) Random mating in a boreal population of European common frogs R. temporaria. Holarct Ecol 10:193–195Google Scholar
  13. Elmberg J (1990) Long-term survival, length of breeding season, and operational sex ratio in a boreal population of common frogs R. temporaria L. Can J Zool 68:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elmberg J (1991) Ovarian cyclicity and fecundity in boreal common frogs R. temporaria along a climatic gradient. Funct Ecol 5:340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endler JA (1992) Geographic variation, speciation, and clines. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gasc J-P, Cabela A, Crnobrnja-Isailovic J, Dolmen D, Grossenbacher K, Haffner P, Lescure J, Martens H, Martínez Rica JP, Maurin H, Oliveira ME, Sofianidou TS, Veith M, Zuiderwijk A (eds) (1997) Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 29. Societas Europea Herpetologica & Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle (IEGB/SPN), ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbons JW, Lovich JE (1990) Sexual dimorphism in turtles with emphasis on the slider turtle (Trachemys scripta). Herpetol Monogr 4:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons MM, McCarthy TK (1984) Growth, maturation and survival of frogs R. temporaria L. Holarct Ecol 7:419–427Google Scholar
  19. Guarino FM, Di Gia I, Sindaci R (2008) Age structure in a declining population of R. temporaria from northern Italy. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 54:99–112Google Scholar
  20. Guyétant R, Brosse S, Herold JA, Pinston H (1988) Etude de la croissance et du développement de grenouilles rousses R. temporaria en altitude (Alpes du nord). CRAS 182:301–307Google Scholar
  21. Halliday TR, Verrell PA (1988) Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. J Herpetol 22:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hemelaar ASM (1983) Age of B. bufo in amplexus over the spawning period. Oikos 40:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hemelaar ASM (1985) An improved method to estimate the number of year rings resorbed in phalanges of B. bufo (L.) and its application to populations from different latitudes and altitudes. Amphibia-Reptilia 6:323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hemelaar ASM (1986) Demographic study on B. bufo L. (Anura, Amphibia) from different climates, by means of skeletochronology. PhD thesis, University of NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  25. Heusser H (1970) Ansiedlung, ortstreue und populationdynamik des grasfroches (R. temporaria) an ainem gartenweiher. Salamandra 6:80–87Google Scholar
  26. Hjernquist MB, Söderman F, Jönsson KI, Herczeg G, Laurila A, Merilä J (2012) Seasonality determines patterns of growth and age structure over a geographic gradient in an ectothermic vertebrate. Oecologia (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Karl I, Fischer K (2009) Altitudinal and environmental variation in lifespan in Copper butterly Lycaena tityrus. Funct Ecol 23:1132–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laugen AT, Laurila A, Räsänen K, Merilä J (2003) Latitudinal countergradient variation in the common frog (R. temporaria) development rates—evidence for local adaptation. J Evol Biol 16:996–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laugen AT, Laurila A, Jönsson KI, Söderman F, Merilä J (2005) Do common frogs (R. temporaria) follow Bergmann’s rule? Evol Ecol Res 7:717–731Google Scholar
  30. Laurila A, Lindgren B, Laugen AT (2008) Antipredator defenses along a latitudinal gradient in R. temporaria. Ecology 89:1399–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leclair R Jr, Laurin G (1996) Growth and body size in populations of mink frogs Rana septentrionalis from two latitudes. Ecography 19:296–304Google Scholar
  32. Leclair R, Leclair MH, Dubois J, Daoust J-L (2000) Age and size of wood frogs, Rana sylvatica, from Kuujjuarapik, Northern Quebec. Can Field Nat 114:381–387Google Scholar
  33. Leclair MH, Leclair R Jr, Gallant J (2005) Application of skeletochronology to a population of Pelobates cultripes (Anura: Pelobatidae) from Portugal. J Herpetol 39:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindgren B, Laurila A (2005) Proximate causes of adaptive growth rates, growth efficiency variation among latitudinal populations of R. temporaria. J Evol Biol 18:820–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loehr VJT, Hofmeyr MD, Henen BT (2007) Growing and shrinking in the smallest tortoise, Homopus signatus signatus: the importance of rain. Oecologia 153:479–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loman J (1978) Growth of brown frog Rana arvalis Nilsson and R. temporaria L. in South Sweden. Ekol Pol 26:287–296Google Scholar
  37. Matsuba C, Maura I, Merilä J (2008) Disentangling genetic vs. environmental causes of sex determination in the common frog, R. temporaria. BMC Genet 9:3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthews KR, Miaud C (2007) A skeletochronological study of the age structure, growth, and longevity of the mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa, in the Sierra Nevada, California. Copeia 2007:986–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miaud C (1992) La squelettochronologie chez les Triturus (Amphibiens, Urodeles) à partir d’une étude de T. alpestris, T. helveticus et T. cristatus du sud-est de la France. Paris : ORSTOM, INRA p 363–384Google Scholar
  40. Miaud C, Guyétant R, Elmberg J (1999) Variations in life-history traits in the common frog (R. temporaria, Amphibia: Anura): a literature review and new data from the French Alps. J Zool (Lond) 249:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Monnet JM, Cherry MI (2002) Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2301–2307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morrison C, Hero JM (2003) Geographic variation in life history characteristics of amphibians: a review. J Anim Ecol 72:270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Munch SB, Salinas S (2009) Latitudinal variation in lifespan within species is explained by the metabolic theory of ecology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:13860–13864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed -effects models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing Series, Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  45. Ranta E, Laurila A, Elmberg J (1994) Reinventing the wheel: analysis of sexual dimorphism in body size. Oikos 70:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rozenblut B, Ogielska M (2005) Development and growth of long bones in European water frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae), with remarks on age determination. J Morphol 265:304–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryser J (1988) Determination of growth and maturation in the common frog, R. temporaria, by skeletochronolgy. J Zool (Lond) 216:673–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ryser J (1996) Comparative life histories of low- and high-elevation population of the common frog R. temporaria. Amphibia-Reptilia 17:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sagor ES, Ouellet M, Barten E, Green DM (1998) Skeletochronology and geographic variation in age structure in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 32:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sears MW (2005) Geographic variation in the life history of the sagebrush lizard: the role of thermal constraints on activity. Oecologia 143:25–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smirina EM (1994) Age determination and longevity in amphibians. Gerontology 40:133–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tejedo M, Reques R, Esteban M (1997) Actual and osteochronological estimated age of natterjack toads (Bufo calamita). Herpetol J 7:81–82Google Scholar
  53. Wagner A, Schabetsberger R, Sztatecsny M, Kaiser R (2011) Skeletochronology of phalanges underestimates the true age of long-lived Alpine newts (Ichtyosaura alpestris). Herpetol J 21:145–148Google Scholar
  54. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Wikelski M, Carrillo V, Trillmich F (1997) Energy limits to body size in a grazing reptile, the Galapagos marine iguana. Ecology 78:2204–2217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yamahira K, Conover DO (2002) Intra- vs. interspecific latitudinal variation in growth: adaptation to temperature or seasonality? Ecology 83:1252–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cécile Patrelle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mårten B. Hjernquist
    • 2
  • Anssi Laurila
    • 2
  • Fredrik Söderman
    • 2
  • Juha Merilä
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecological Genetics Research Unit, Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Population and Conservation Biology, Department of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations