Larval skipper frogs recognise kairomones of certain predators innately
- 167 Downloads
Recognising potential predators is critical for the survival and reproduction of prey animals. However, prey animals may possess an innate ability to recognise the signature odours (kairomones) of only certain native, sympatric predators, while requiring learning to recognise others. Our observations have shown that larval skipper frogs (Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis) fail to recognise kairomones of dragonfly nymph, a common predator of amphibian tadpoles with a cosmopolitan distribution. Hence, we wanted to determine if larval skipper frogs totally lack an innate mechanism to recognise kairomones of all aquatic predators, or have an innate ability to recognise kairomones of only certain predators. In a series of experiments, we tested the antipredator response of larval skipper frogs to kairomones of dragonfly nymph (Bradinopyga geminata); walking catfish (Clarias batrachus); Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus); two species of predatory tadpoles, Indian bullfrog (Hoplobatrachus tigerinus) and Jerdon’s bullfrog (Hoplobatrachus crassus); and the checkered keel back snake (Xenochrophis piscator). The results clearly indicate that larval skipper frogs have the innate ability to recognise kairomones of the walking catfish, both species of larval bullfrog and checkered keel back snake. However, they lack the innate ability to recognise kairomones of dragonfly nymph and Mozambique tilapia. Prey choice of the Mozambique tilapia and gape-limitation of dragonfly nymphs could be responsible for the lack of innate responses of larval skipper frogs to them. The study provides empirical evidence for the notion that prey can innately recognise certain predators.
KeywordsAntipredator response Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Innate predator recognition Signature odour Non-native predator
This research was supported by UGC-CAS Phase III and DRDP to the Department of Zoology, Savitribai Phule Pune University. S. C. S. is grateful to Savitribai Phule Pune University for a research fellowship. We are thankful to two anonymous referees for their critical comments on the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest.
This study was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Departmental Committee for Animal Ethics (in India, animals other than mammals do not come under the purview of the Institutional Committee for Animal Ethics, no. 538/CPCSEA). No animals were sacrificed during the study and all the animals used for the study were released back into nature.
- Brown GE, Chivers DP (2005) Learning as an adaptive response to predation. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of predator/prey interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–54Google Scholar
- Daniels RJR (2005) Amphibians of peninsular India. In: Gadgil M (ed) India - a life scape, Universities Press, India, pp 179–182Google Scholar
- Gallie JA, Mumme RL, Wissinger SA (2001) Experience has no effect on the development of chemosensory recognition of predators by tadpoles of the American toad, Bufo americanus. Herpetologica 57:376–383Google Scholar
- Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
- Indira R, Prabhu Arachi JMA, Varadharajan D (2013) Food and feeding habits of tilapiine cichlid fish Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters) from Pichavaram Mangrove, South East Coast of India. Int J Pharm Biol Arch 4:157–169Google Scholar
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (2009) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species version 2016-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 14 Dec 2008
- Khan MS (1996) The oropharyngeal morphology and feeding habits of tadpole of tiger frog Rana tigerina Daudin. Russ J Herpetol 3:163–171Google Scholar
- Pringle R (2011) Nile Perch. In: Simberloff D, Rejmanek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 484Google Scholar
- Schmidt BR, Amézquita A (2001) Predator-induced behavioural responses: tadpoles of the Neotropical frog Phyllomedusa tarsius do not respond to all predators. Herpetol J 11:9–16Google Scholar