Oecologia

, Volume 170, Issue 3, pp 629–639 | Cite as

Effects of size and size structure on predation and inter-cohort competition in red-eyed treefrog tadpoles

Population ecology - Original research

Abstract

Individual and relative body size are key determinants of ecological performance, shaping the strength and types of interactions within and among species. Size-dependent performance is particularly important for iteroparous species with overlapping cohorts, determining the ability of new cohorts to invade habitats with older, larger conspecifics. We conducted two mesocosm experiments to examine the role of size and size structure in shaping growth and survival in tadpoles of the red-eyed treefrog (Agalychnis callidryas), a tropical species with a prolonged breeding season. First, we used a response surface design to quantify the competitive effect and response of two tadpole size classes across three competitive environments. Large tadpoles were superior per capita effect competitors, increasing the size difference between cohorts through time at high resource availability. Hatchlings were better per biomass response competitors, and maintained the size difference between cohorts when resource availability was low. However, in contrast to previous studies, small tadpoles never closed the size gap with large tadpoles. Second, we examine the relationship between body size, size structure, and predation by dragonfly nymphs (Anax amazili) on tadpole survival and growth. Hatchlings were more vulnerable to predation; predator and large competitor presence interacted to reduce hatchling growth. Again, the size gap between cohorts increased over time, but increased marginally more with predators present. These findings have implications for understanding how variation in resources and predation over the breeding season will shape population size structure through time and the ability of new cohorts to invade habitats with older conspecifics.

Keywords

Size structure Age structure Intraspecific competition Predator–prey Non-consumptive predator effect Ontogeny Size scaling 

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magelhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with image. J Biophotonics Intl 11:36–42Google Scholar
  2. Aljetlawi AA, Leonardsson K (2002) Size-dependent competitive ability in a deposit-feeding amphipod, Monoporeia affinis. Oikos 97:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aljetlawi AA, Sparrevik E, Leonardsson K (2004) Prey-predator size-dependent functional response: derivation and rescaling to the real world. J Anim Ecol 73:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anholt BR (1994) Cannibalism and early instar survival in a larval damselfly. Oecologia 99:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balfour RA, Buddle CM, Rypstra AL, Walker SE, Marshall SD (2003) Ontogenetic shifts in competitive interactions and intra-guild predation between two wolf spider species. Ecol Entomol 28:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. (2011) Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42Google Scholar
  7. Brodie DB, Formanowicz DR (1983) Prey size preference of predators: differential vulnerability in larval anurans. Herpetologica 39:67–75Google Scholar
  8. Brooks JL, Dodson SI (1965) Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150:28–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brose U (2009) Body-mass constraints on foraging behavior determine population and food web dynamics. Funct Ecol 24:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron TC, Wearing HJ, Rohani P, Sait SM (2007) Two-species asymmetric competition: effects of age structure on intra- and interspecific interactions. J Anim Ecol 76:83–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claessen D, Van Oss C, De Roos AM, Persson L (2000) The impact of size-dependent predation on population dynamics and individual life history. Ecology 83:1660–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa Z (2011) Species level differences in the ecology of two Neotropical tadpoles: responses to nonlethal predators and the roles of competition and resource use. Master’s thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  14. Cressler CE, King AA, Werner EE (2010) Interactions between behavioral and life-history trade-offs in the evolution of integrated predator-defense plasticity. Am Nat 176:276–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crump ML (1990) Possible enhancement of growth in tadpoles through cannibalism. Copeia 1990:560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crumrine PW (2010) Size-structured cannibalism between top predators promotes the survival of intermediate predators in an intraguild predation system. J N Am Benth Soc 29(2):636–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Roos AM, Persson L, McCauley E (2003) The influence of size dependent life-history traits on the structure and dynamics of populations and communities. Ecol Lett 6:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duellman WE (2001) The hylid frogs of Middle America. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebenman B (1988) Competition between age classes and population dynamics. J Theor Biol 131:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebenman B, Persson L (1988) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerber GP, Echternacht AC (2000) Evidence for asymmetrical intraguild predation between native and introduced Anolis lizards. Oecologia 124:599–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberg DE, Fleetwood L (1987) Comparison of competitive effects and responses among annual plants. J Ecol 75:1131–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldberg DE, Landa K (1991) Competitive effect and response—hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J Ecol 79(4):1013–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawley TJ (2009) The ecological significance and incidence of intraguild predation and cannibalism among anurans in ephemeral tropical pools. Copeia 2009:748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hite JL (2009) Predator and abiotic effects on hatching phenotype and survival of arboreal frog eggs with implications for phytoplankton. Master’s thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  26. Hopper KR, Crowley PH, Kielman D (1996) Density dependence, hatching synchrony, and within-cohort cannibalism in young dragonfly larvae. Ecology 77:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inouye BD (2001) Response surface experimental designs for investigating interspecific competition. Ecology 82:2696–2706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeschke JM, Tollrian R (2007) Prey swarming: which predators become confused and why? Anim Behav 74:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirkpatrick M (1988) The evolution of size in size-structured populations. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, New York, pp 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kishida O, Trussell GC, Nishimura K, Ohgushi T (2009) Inducible defenses in prey intensify predator cannibalism. Ecology 90:3150–3158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kishida O, Trussell GC, Ohno A, Kuwano S, Ikawa T, Nishimura K (2011) Predation risk suppresses the positive feedback between size structure and cannibalism. J Anim Ecol 80:1278–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kitajima K, Poorter L (2011) Functional basis for resource niche partitioning by tropical trees. In W. Carson and S. Schnitzer (eds) Tropical forest community ecology. Wiley–Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  33. Kreutzer C, Lampert W (1999) Exploitative competition in differently sized Daphnia species: a mechanistic explanation. Ecology 80:2348–2357Google Scholar
  34. Leisnham PT, Juliano SA (2010) Interpopulation differences in competitive effect and response of the mosquito Aedes aegypti and resistance to invasion by a superior competitor. Oecologia 164(1):221–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCollum SA (1993) Ecological consequences of predator-induced polyphenism in larval hylid frogs. PhD dissertation. Duke University, Durham, NC Google Scholar
  36. McCollum SA, Van Buskirk J (1996) Costs and bene®ts of a predator- induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution 50:583–593Google Scholar
  37. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Warkentin KM, Vonesh JR (2011) Predicting predation through prey ontogeny using size-dependent functional response models. Am Nat 177:752–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson MH, Mittelbach GG, OSenberg CW (1995) Competition between predator and prey-resource-based mechanisms and implications for stage structured dynamics. Ecology 76:1758–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peacor SD, Pfsiter CA (2006) Experimental and model analyses of the effects of competition on individual size variation in wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles. J Anim Ecol 75:990–999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peacor SD, Werner EE (2001) The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(7):3904–3908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peacor SD, Bence JR, Pfister CA (2007a) The effect of size-dependent growth and environmental factors on animal size variability. Theor Popul Biol 71:80–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peacor SD, Schiesari L, Werner EE (2007b) Mechanisms of nonlethal predator effect on cohort size variation: ecological and evolutionary implications. Ecology 88(6):1536–1547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Persson L, de Roos AM (2006) Size-structured interactions and the dynamics of aquatic systems. Pol J Ecol 54:621–632Google Scholar
  44. Persson L, Greenberg LA (1990) Interspecific and intraspecific size class competition affecting resource use and growth of perch, Perca fluviatilis. Okios 40:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Persson L, Leonardsson K, de Roos AM, Gyllenberg M, Christensend B (1998) Ontogenetic scaling of foraging rates and the dynamics of a size-structured consumer-resource. Theor Popul Biol 54(3):270–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Persson L, De Roos AM, Claessen D, Bystrom P, Lovgren J, Sjogren S, Svanback R, Wahlstrom E, Westman E (2003) Gigantic cannibals driving a whole-lake trophic cascade. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100(7):4035–4039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size: Cambridge studies in ecology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, The R Development Core Team (2012) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–103Google Scholar
  49. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  50. Roberts WE (1994) Evolution and ecology of arboreal egg-laying frogs. PhD dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  51. Rudolf VHW (2008a) Consequences of size-structure in the prey for predator-prey dynamics: the composite functional response. J Anim Ecol 77:520–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rudolf VHW (2008b) Impact of cannibalism on predator-prey dynamics: size-structured interactions and apparent mutualism. Ecology 86:1650–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Samhouri JF, Steele MA, Forrester GE (2009) Inter-cohort competition drives density dependence and selective mortality in a marine fish. Ecology 90:1009–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schroder A, Nilsson KA, Persson L, van Kooten T, Reichstein B (2009) Invasion success depends on invader body size in a size-structured mixed predation-competition community. J Anim Ecol 78:1152–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sebens KP (1982) The limits of indeterminate growth: an optimal size model applied to passive suspension feeders. Ecology 63:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith CK (1990) Effects of variation in body size on intraspecific competition among larval salamanders. Ecology 71:1777–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steiner UK (2007) Linking antipredator behaviour, ingestion, gut evacuation and costs of predator-induced responses in tadpoles. Anim Behav 74:1473–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sundell J, Norrdahl K (2002) Body size-dependent refuges in voles: an alternative explanation of the Chitty effect. Ann Zool Fenn 39:325–333Google Scholar
  59. Van Buskirk J (2001) Specific induced responses to different predator species in anuran larvae. J Evol Biol 14:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997a) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51:1983–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997b) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51:1983–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vonesh JR, Bolker BM (2005) Compensatory larval responses shift trade-offs associated with predator-induced hatching plasticity. Ecology 86:1580–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang P, Stieglitz T, Zhou DW, Cahill JF (2010) Are competitive effect and response two sides of the same coin, or fundamentally different? Funct Ecol 24(1):196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Warkentin KW (1995) Adaptive plasticity in hatching age: a response to predation risk trade-offs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:3507–3510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Warkentin KW (2005) How do embryos assess risk? Vibrational cues in predator-induced hatching of red-eyed treefrogs. Anim Behav 70:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warkentin KW (2011) Plasticity of hatching in amphibians: evolution, trade-offs, cues and mechanisms. Integr Comp Biol 51:111–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wassersug RJ, Rosenberg K (1979) Surface anatomy of branchial food traps of tadpoles: a comparative study. J Morphol 159:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Werner EE (1988) Size, scaling and the evolution of life. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 60–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Werner EE (1994) Ontogenetic scaling of competitive relations: size-dependent effects and responses in two anuran larvae. Ecology 75:197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1996) Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilbur HM (1984) Complex life cycles and community organization in amphibians. In: Price PW, Slobodchikoff CW, Gaud WS (eds) A new ecology: novel approaches to interactive systems. Wiley, New York, pp 195–224Google Scholar
  73. Wilbur HM (1988) Interactions between growing predators and growing prey. In: Ebenmann B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations