Oecologia

, Volume 138, Issue 1, pp 102–111 | Cite as

A growth/mortality trade-off in larval salamanders and the coexistence of intraguild predators and prey

Community Ecology

Abstract

Behavioral and morphological traits often influence a key trade-off between resource acquisition and vulnerability to predation, and understanding trait differences between species can provide critical insight into their interactions with other species and their distributions. Such an approach should enhance our understanding of the criteria for coexistence between species that can interact through both competition and predation (i.e. intraguild predators and prey). I conducted a common garden experiment that revealed strong differences between three guild members (larval salamanders Ambystoma laterale, A. maculatum, and A. tigrinum) in behavior, morphology, and growth in the presence and absence of a shared top predator (the larval dragonfly Anax longipes). All three species also reduced their activity and modified their tail fin depth, tail muscle length, and body length in response to non-lethal Anax. Species that act as intraguild predators were more active and could grow faster than their intraguild prey species, but they also suffered higher mortality in laboratory predation trials with Anax. I also used survey data from natural communities to compare the distribution of Ambystoma species between ponds differing in abiotic characteristics and predatory invertebrate assemblages. An intraguild prey species (A. maculatum) was found more reliably, occurred at higher densities, and was more likely to persist late into the larval period in ponds with more diverse invertebrate predator assemblages. Taken together, these results indicate that top predators such as Anax may play an important role in influencing intraguild interactions among Ambystoma and ultimately their local distribution patterns.

Keywords

Ambystoma Behavior Morphology Phenotypic plasticity Predation risk 

References

  1. Brophy TE (1980) Food habits of sympatric larval Ambystoma tigrinum and Notophthalmus viridescens. J Herpetol 14:1–6Google Scholar
  2. Caldwell JP, Thorp JH, Jervey TO (1980) Predator-prey relationships among larval dragonflies, salamanders, and frogs. Oecologia 46:285–289Google Scholar
  3. Diehl S (1993) Relative consumer sizes and the strengths of direct and indirect interactions in omnivorous feeding relationships. Oikos 68:151–157Google Scholar
  4. Dixon WJ (1950) Analysis of extreme values. Ann Math Stat 21:488–506Google Scholar
  5. Dixon WJ (1951) Ratios involving extreme values. Ann Math Stat 22:68–78Google Scholar
  6. Doherty PA, Wassersug RJ, Lee JM (1998) Mechanical properties of the tadpole tail fin. J Exp Biol 201:2691–2699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths RA, de Wijer P, May RT (1994) Predation and competition within an assemblage of larval newts (Triturus). Ecography 17:176–181Google Scholar
  8. Hoff KS, Lannoo MJ, Wassersug RJ (1985) Kinematics of midwater prey capture by Ambystoma (Caudata: Ambystomatidae) larvae. Copeia 1985:247–251Google Scholar
  9. Hoff KS, Huq N, King VA, Wassersug RJ (1989) The kinematics of larval salamander swimming (Ambystomatidae: Caudata). Can J Zool 67:2756–2761Google Scholar
  10. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huey RB (1980) Sprint velocity of tadpoles (Bufo boreas) through metamorphosis. Copeia 1980:537–540Google Scholar
  12. Hurd LE (1988) Consequences of divergent egg phenology to predation and coexistence in two sympatric, congeneric mantids (Orthoptera: Mantidae). Oecologia 76:549–552Google Scholar
  13. Husting EL (1965) Survival and breeding structure in a population of Ambystoma maculatum. Copeia 1965:352–362Google Scholar
  14. Keen WH, Travis J, Juilianna J (1984) Larval growth in three sympatric Ambystoma salamander species: species differences and the effects of temperature. Can J Zool 62:1043–1047Google Scholar
  15. Kleeberger SR, Werner JK (1983) Postbreeding migration and summer movement of Ambystoma maculatum. J Herpetol 17:176–177Google Scholar
  16. Kuhara N, Nakano S, Miyasaka H (1999) Interspecific competition between two stream insect grazers mediated by non-feeding predatory fish. Oikos 87:27–35Google Scholar
  17. Lundqvist E, Landin J, Milberg P (2001) Diving beetle (Dytiscidae) assemblages along environmental gradients in an agricultural landscape in southeastern Sweden. Wetlands 21:48–58Google Scholar
  18. Maret TJ, Collins JP (1996) Effect of prey vulnerability on population size structure of a gape-limited predator. Ecology 77:320–324Google Scholar
  19. McCollum SA, Leimberger JD (1997) Predator-induced morphological changes in an amphibian: predation by dragonflies affects tadpole shape and color. Oecologia 109:615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nyman S (1991) Ecological aspects of syntopic larvae of Ambystoma maculatum and the A. laterale-jeffersonianum complex in two New Jersey ponds. J Herpetol 25:505–509Google Scholar
  21. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 100:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peacor SD, Werner EE (2000) Predator effects on an assemblage of consumers through induced changes in consumer foraging behavior. Ecology 81:1998–2010Google Scholar
  23. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Persson L (1991) Behavioral response to predators reverses the outcome of competition between prey species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:101–105Google Scholar
  25. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Polis GA, Holt RD (1992) Intraguild predation: the dynamics of complex trophic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 7:151–154Google Scholar
  27. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330Google Scholar
  28. Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills LS, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 46:609–620Google Scholar
  29. Reilly SM, Lauder GV, Collins JP (1992) Performance consequences of a trophic polymorphism: feeding behavior in typical and cannibal phenotypes of Ambystoma tigrinum. Copeia 1992:672–679Google Scholar
  30. Relyea RA (2001a) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523–540Google Scholar
  31. Relyea RA (2001b) The relationship between predation risk and antipredator responses in larval anurans. Ecology 82:541–554Google Scholar
  32. Relyea RA (2002) Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol Monogr 72:523–540Google Scholar
  33. Relyea RA, Yurewicz KL (2002) Predicting community outcomes from pairwise interactions: integrating density- and trait-mediated effects. Oecologia 131:569–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shoop CR (1974) Yearly variation in larval survival of Ambystoma maculatum. Ecology 55:440–444Google Scholar
  35. Skelly DK (1995) A behavioral trade-off and its consequences for the distribution of Pseudacris treefrog larvae. Ecology 76:150–164Google Scholar
  36. Skelly DK, Werner EE, Cortwright SA (1999) Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80:2326–2337Google Scholar
  37. Smith DC, Van Buskirk J (1995) Phenotypic design, plasticity, and ecological performance in two tadpole species. Am Nat 145:211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suhling F (2001) Intraguild predation, activity patterns, growth and longitudinal distribution in running water odonate larvae. Arch Hydrobiol 151:1-15Google Scholar
  39. Talentino KA, Landre E (1991) Comparative development of two species of sympatric Ambystoma salamanders. J Freshw Ecol 6:395–401Google Scholar
  40. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Buskirk J (1988) Interactive effects of dragonfly predation in experimental pond communities. Ecology 69:857–867Google Scholar
  42. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA (2000) Functional mechanisms of an inducible defense in tadpoles: morphology and behavior influence mortality risk from predation. J Evol Biol 13:336–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Buskirk J, Relyea RA (1998) Selection for phenotypic plasticity in Rana sylvatica tadpoles. Biol J Linn Soc 65:301–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Buskirk J, Schmidt BR (2000) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in larval newts: trade-offs, selection, and variation in nature. Ecology 81:3009–3028Google Scholar
  45. Van Buskirk J, Yurewicz KL (1998) Effects of predators on prey growth rate: relative contributions of thinning and reduced activity. Oikos 82:20–28Google Scholar
  46. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51:1983–1992Google Scholar
  47. Wassersug RJ (1989) Locomotion in amphibian larvae (or, "Why aren't tadpoles built like fishes?"). Am Zool 29:65–84Google Scholar
  48. Wassersug RJ, Hoff KS (1985) The kinematics of swimming in anuran larvae. J Exp Biol 119:4-30Google Scholar
  49. Watkins TB (1996) Predator-mediated selection on burst swimming performance in tadpoles of the Pacific tree frog, Pseudacris regilla. Physiol Zool 69:154–167Google Scholar
  50. Webb PW (1984) Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. Am Zool 24:107–120Google Scholar
  51. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Werner EE (1998) Ecological experiments and a research program in community ecology. In: Resetarits WJ Jr, Bernardo J (eds) Experimental ecology: issues and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp3–26Google Scholar
  53. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1993) Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat 142:242–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1996) Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77:157–169Google Scholar
  55. Werner EE, Glennemeier KS (1999) Influence of forest canopy cover on the breeding pond distributions of several amphibian species. Copeia 1999:1-12Google Scholar
  56. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100Google Scholar
  57. Whitford WG, Vinegar A (1966) Homing, survivorship, and overwintering of larvae in spotted salamanders, Ambystoma maculatum. Copeia 1966:515–519Google Scholar
  58. Wilbur HM (1972) Competition, predation, and the structure of the Ambystoma-Rana sylvatica community. Ecology 53:3-21Google Scholar
  59. Wissinger SA, Sparks GB, Rouse GL, Brown WS, Steltzer H (1996) Intraguild predation and cannibalism among larvae of detritivorous caddisflies in subalpine wetlands. Ecology 77:2421–2430Google Scholar
  60. Wissinger SA, Whiteman HH, Sparks GB, Rouse GL, Brown WS (1999) Foraging trade-offs along a predator-permanence gradient in subalpine wetlands. Ecology 80:2102-2116Google Scholar
  61. Yurewicz KL (2002) Size structure and intraguild interactions in larval salamanders. PhD dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations