Oecologia

, Volume 179, Issue 2, pp 425–433 | Cite as

Intercohort size structure dynamics of fire salamander larvae in ephemeral habitats: a mesocosm experiment

  • Asaf Sadeh
  • Antonina Polevikov
  • Marc Mangel
  • Leon Blaustein
Population ecology - Original research

Abstract

The size structure of a larval population facilitates interaction asymmetries that, in turn, influence the dynamics of size-structure. In species that exhibit conspicuous aggressive interactions, the competitive effects of the smaller individuals may be overlooked. We manipulated initial size differences between two larval cohorts and young-cohort density of Salamandra infraimmaculata in mesocosms to determine: (1) whether young individuals function primarily as prey or as competitors of older and larger individuals; (2) the resulting dynamics of size variation; and (3) recruitment to the postmetamorph population. Intercohort size differences generally remained constant over time at low young-cohort densities, but reduced over time at high densities due to retardation of the old-cohort growth rate. This suggests a competitive advantage to the young cohort that outweighs the interference advantage of older cohorts previously documented in this species. The increase in mortality from desiccation due to high young-cohort density was an order of magnitude greater in the old cohort than in the young-cohort, further indicating size-dependent vulnerability to competition. However, the conditions least favorable to most of the old-cohort larvae (large size difference and high young-cohort density) promoted cannibalism. Among cannibals, mortality and time to metamorphosis decreased and sizes at metamorphosis increased substantially. Thus, a balance between the competitive advantage to young cohorts, and the interference and cannibalism advantage to old cohorts shapes larval size-structure dynamics. Larval densities and individual expression of cannibalism can shift this balance in opposite directions and alter relative recruitment rates from different cohorts.

Keywords

Amphibians Exploitative competition Fire salamander Niche shifts Priority effects 

References

  1. Anholt BR (1994) Cannibalism and early instar survival in a larval damselfly. Oecologia 99:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-David S et al (2007) Long-distance movements by fire salamanders: integration of capture-recapture and genetic data and implications for conservation. Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  3. Blank L et al (2013) Genetic population structure of the endangered fire salamander (Salamandra infraimmaculata) at the southernmost extreme of its distribution. Anim Conserv 16:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaustein L, Friedman J, Fahima T (1996) Larval Salamandra drive temporary pool community dynamics: evidence from an artificial pool experiment. Oikos 76:392–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Claessen D, de Roos AM, Persson L (2000) Dwarfs and giants: cannibalism and competition in size-structured populations. Am Nat 155:219–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Claessen D, de Roos AM, Persson L (2004) Population dynamic theory of size-dependent cannibalism. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Block M, Stoks R (2004) Cannibalism-mediated life history plasticity to combined time and food stress. Oikos 106:587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Degani G (1993) Cannibalism among Salamandra salamandra (L) larvae. Isr J Zool 39:125–129Google Scholar
  9. Degani G, Goldenberg S, Warburg MR (1980) Cannibalistic phenomena in Salamandra salamandra larvae in certain water bodies and under experimental conditions. Hydrobiologia 75:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eitam A, Blaustein L (2002) Noninvasive individual identification of larval Salamandra using tailfin spot patterns. Amphib Reptil 23:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eitam A, Blaustein L, Mangel M (2005) Density and intercohort priority effects on larval Salamandra salamandra in temporary pools. Oecologia 146:36–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant JWA, Girard IL, Breau C, Weir LK (2002) Influence of food abundance on competitive aggression in juvenile convict cichlids. Anim Behav 63:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hastings A, Costantino RF (1991) Oscillations in population numbers: age-dependent cannibalism. J Anim Ecol 60:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hjelm J, Persson L (2001) Size-dependent attack rate and handling capacity: inter-cohort competition in a zooplanktivorous fish. Oikos 95:520–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopper KR, Crowley PH, Kielman D (1996) Density dependence, hatching synchrony, and within-cohort cannibalism in young dragonfly larvae. Ecology 77:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huss M, Bystrom P, Persson L (2008a) Resource heterogeneity, diet shifts and intra-cohort competition: effects on size divergence in YOY fish. Oecologia 158:249–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Huss M, Bystrom P, Strand A, Eriksson LO, Persson L (2008b) Influence of growth history on the accumulation of energy reserves and winter mortality in young fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:2149–2156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huss M, van Kooten T, Persson L (2010) Intra-cohort cannibalism and size bimodality: a balance between hatching synchrony and resource feedbacks. Oikos 119:2000–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaspersson R, Höjesjö J, Pedersen S (2010) Effects of density on foraging success and aggression in age-structured groups of brown trout. Anim Behav 79:709–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loman J (2002) When crowded tadpoles (Rana arvalis and R. temporaria) fail to metamorphose and thus fail to escape drying ponds. Herpetol J 12:21–28Google Scholar
  21. Persson L (1985) Asymmetrical competition: are larger animal competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Polis GA (1981) The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:225–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polis GA (1988) Exploitation competition and the evolution of interference, cannibalism and intraguild predation in age/size-structured populations. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations: ecology and evolution. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reques R, Tejedo M (1996) Intraspecific aggressive behaviour in fire salamander larvae (Salamandra salamandra): the effects of density and body size. Herpetol J 6:15–19Google Scholar
  26. Sadeh A (2012) Kin-selective cannibalism and compensatory performance in larval salamander cohorts inhabiting temporary pools. Evol Ecol Res 14:113–123Google Scholar
  27. Sadeh A, Mangel M, Blaustein L (2009) Context-dependent reproductive habitat selection: the interactive roles of structural complexity and cannibalistic conspecifics. Ecol Lett 12:1158–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadeh A, Truskanov N, Mangel M, Blaustein L (2011) Compensatory development and costs of plasticity: larval responses to desiccated conspecifics. PLoS ONE 6:e15602PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Segev O, Blaustein L (2014) Influence of water velocity and predation risk on fire salamander (Salamandra infraimmaculata) larval drift among temporary pools in ephemeral streams. Freshw Sci 33:950–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Segev O, Mangel M, Wolf N, Sadeh A, Kershenbaum A, Blaustein L (2011) Spatiotemporal reproductive strategies in the fire salamander: a model and empirical test. Behav Ecol 22:670–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith CK (1990) Effects of variation in body size on intraspecific competition among larval salamanders. Ecology 71:1777–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spencer M, Schwartz SS, Blaustein L (2002) Are there fine-scale spatial patterns in community similarity among temporary freshwater pools? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steinfartz S, Veith M, Tautz D (2000) Mitochondrial sequence analysis of Salamandra taxa suggests old splits of major lineages and postglacial recolonizations of Central Europe from distinct source populations of Salamandra salamandra. Mol Ecol 9:397–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. van den Bosch F, de Roos AM, Gabriel W (1988) Cannibalism as a life boat mechanism. J Math Biol 26:619–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walls SC, Jaeger RG (1987) Aggression and exploitation as mechanisms of competition in larval salamanders. Can J Zool 65:2938–2944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warburg MR (1992) Breeding patterns in a fringe population of fire salamanders, Salamandra salamandra. Herpetol J 2:54–58Google Scholar
  37. Warburg MR, Degani G, Warburg I (1979) Growth and population structure of Salamandra salamandra (L) larvae in different limnological conditions. Hydrobiologia 64:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Werner EE (1994) Ontogenetic scaling of competitive relations: size-dependent effects and responses in two anuran larvae. Ecology 75:197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wissinger SA, Whiteman HH, Denoel M, Mumford ML, Aubee CB (2010) Consumptive and nonconsumptive effects of cannibalism in fluctuating age-structured populations. Ecology 91:549–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ziemba RE, Collins JP (1999) Development of size structure in tiger salamanders: the role of intraspecific interference. Oecologia 120:524–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziemba RE, Myers MT, Collins JP (2000) Foraging under the risk of cannibalism leads to divergence in body size among tiger salamander larvae. Oecologia 124:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asaf Sadeh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antonina Polevikov
    • 1
  • Marc Mangel
    • 3
    • 4
  • Leon Blaustein
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology and the Institute of Evolution, Faculty of Natural SciencesUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyHebrew University of JerusalemRehovotIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Applied Mathematics and the Center for Stock AssessmentUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations