Oecologia

, Volume 145, Issue 3, pp 364–370 | Cite as

Costs and limits of dosage response to predation risk: to what extent can tadpoles invest in anti-predator morphology?

Population Ecology

Abstract

Inducible defences have long been considered as a polyphenism opposing defended and undefended morphs. However, in nature, preys are exposed to various levels of predation risk and scale their investment in defence to actual predation risk. Still, among the traits that are involved in the defence, some are specific to one predator type while others act as a more generalised defence. The existence of defence costs could prevent an individual investing in all these traits simultaneously. In this study, we investigate the impact of an increasing level of predator density (stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus) on the expression of morphological inducible defences in tadpoles of Rana dalmatina. In this species, investment in tail length and tail muscle is a stickleback-specific response while increased tail fin depth is a more general defence. As expected, we found a relationship between investment in defence and level of risk through the responses of tail fin depth and tail length. We also found an exponential increase of defence cost, notably expressed by convex decrease of growth and developmental rates. We found a relative independence of investment in the different traits that compose the defence, revealing a high potential for fine tuning the expression of defended phenotypes with respect to local ecological conditions.

Keywords

Inducible defences Morphology Phenotypic plasticity Rana dalmatina 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to A. Laurila and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. We thank J.-P. Léna for help in statistics, L. Canario and A. Renouf for field assistance. We also thank UPRA fishery for providing three-spined sticklebacks. C. Teplitsky was supported by a grant from the French Ministry for Education and Research. R. dalmatina eggs were collected with permits from the French Ministry of Environment and local environmental services. Experiments complied with the current French laws.

References

  1. Altwegg R, Reyer HU (2003) Patterns of natural selection on size at metamorphosis in water frogs. Evolution 57:872–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anholt BR, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Factors modifying antipredator behavior in larval toads. Herpetologica 52:301–313Google Scholar
  3. Barata C, Baird DJ, Soares A (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in Daphnia magna straus: variable maturation instar as an adaptive response to predation pressure. Oecologia 129:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting populations fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the woodfrog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boersma M, Spaak P, DeMeester L (1998) Predator-mediated plasticity in morphology, life history, and behavior of Daphnia: The uncoupling of responses. Am Nat 152:925–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl J, Peckarsky BL (2002) Induced morphological defenses in the wild: predator effects on a mayfly, Drunella coloradensis. Ecology 83:1620–1634Google Scholar
  7. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Hucko JA (1999) Trait compensation and cospecialisation in a freshwater snail: size, shape and antipredator behaviour. Anim Behav 58:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeWitt TJ, Robinson BW, Wilson DS (2000) Functional diversity among predators of a freshwater snail imposes an adaptive trade-off for shell morphology. Evol Ecol Res 2:129–148Google Scholar
  9. Dixon AFG, Agarwala BK (1999) Ladybird-induced life-history changes in aphids. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1549–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goater CP (1994) Growth and survival of postmetamorphic toads—interactions among larval history, density, and parasitism. Ecology 75:2264–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  12. Harvell CD (1990) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Q Rev Biol 65:323–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Harvell CD (1998) Genetic variation and polymorphism in the inducible spines of a marine bryozoan. Evolution 52:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horat P, Semlitsch RD (1994) Effects of predation risk and hunger on the behaviour of two species of tadpoles. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joly P, Morand A (1994) Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: amphibian in the Upper Rhône and its floodplain. Freshw Biol 31:455–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Komers PE (1997) Behavioural plasticity in variable environments. Can J Zool 75:161–169Google Scholar
  17. Lardner B (2000) Morphological and life history response to predators in larvae of seven anurans. Oikos 88:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurila A, Järvi-Laturi M, Pakkasmaa S, Merilä J (2004) Temporal variation in predation risk: stage-dependency, graded responses and fitness costs in tadpole antipredator defences. Oikos 107:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  20. Magurran A, Nowak MA (1991) Another battle of sexes: the consequences of sexual asymmetry in mating costs and predation risk in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc Lond B 246:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nesbitt LM, Riessen HP, Ramcharan CW (1996) Opposing predation pressures and induced vertical migration responses in Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 41:1306–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petterson LB, Brönmark C (1997) Density-dependent costs of an inducible morphological defense in crucian carp. Ecology 78:729–736Google Scholar
  23. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Relyea RA (2003) Predators come and predators go: the reversibility of predator-induced traits. Ecology 84:1840–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Relyea RA (2004) Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riessen HP (1999) Predator-induced life history shifts in Daphnia: a synthesis of studies using meta-analysis. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:2487–2494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. SAS Institute Inc (1999) SAS OnlineDoc, Version 8. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith DC (1987) Adult recruitment in chorus frogs: effects of size and date at metamorphosis. Ecology 68:344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith LD, Jennings JA (2000) Induced defensive responses by the bivalve Mytilus edulis to predators with different attack modes. Mar Biol 136:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teplitsky C, Plénet S, Joly P (2003) Tadpoles responses to the risk of fish introduction. Oecologia 134:270–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Teplitsky C, Plénet S, Léna J-P, Malet E, Joly P (2005) Escape behaviour and ultimate causes of specific induced defenses in an anuran tadpole. J Evol Biol 18:180–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tollrian R (1993) Necteeth formation in Daphnia pulex as an example of continuous plasticity Morphological effects of Chaoborus kairomones concentration and their quantification. J Plankton Res 15:1309–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tollrian R, Dodson S (1999) Inducible defenses in cladocera: constraints, costs and multiple predator environments. In: Tollrian R, Harvell CD (eds) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Buskirk J (2000) The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 81:2813–2821Google Scholar
  35. Van Buskirk J (2001) Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvae. J Evol Biol 14:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Buskirk J (2002a) A comparative test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: relationships between habitat and phenotype in anuran larvae. Am Nat 160:87–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Buskirk J, (2002b) Phenotypic lability and the evolution of predator-induced plasticity in tadpoles. Evolution 56:361–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Buskirk J, Arioli M (2002) Dosage response of an induced defense: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk?. Ecology 83:1580–1585Google Scholar
  39. Van Buskirk J, Relyea RA (1998) Selection for phenotypic plasticity in Rana sylvatica tadpoles. Biol J Linn Soc 65:301–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51:1983–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 37:420–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wellborn GA, Skelly DK, Werner EE (1996) Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Werner EE (1986) Amphibian metamorphosis: growth rate, predation risk, and the optimal size at transformation. Am Nat 128:319–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and speces interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiackowski K, Staronska A (1999) The effect of predator and prey density on the induced defence of a ciliate. Funct Ecol 13:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Céline Teplitsky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandrine Plénet
    • 1
  • Pierre Joly
    • 1
  1. 1.UMR CNRS 5023 Ecology of Fluvial Hydrosystems, Bât Darwin CUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon1Villeurbanne CedexFrance
  2. 2.Departement of PopulationBiology Evolutionary Biology CenterUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations