Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 189–202 | Cite as

Adaptive plasticity in predator-induced defenses in a common freshwater snail: altered selection and mode of predation due to prey phenotype

  • Josh R. Auld
  • Rick A. Relyea
Research Article

Abstract

Studies of putatively adaptive plasticity, such as inducible defenses, frequently explore the fitness consequences of expressing alternative phenotypes in alternative environments, but few studies examine how and why the pattern of selection changes in relation to trait induction. We induced snails in the presence/absence of nonlethal predatory crayfish, exposed both phenotypes (alone and combined) to selection by lethal crayfish, and quantified linear and nonlinear selection differentials. Crayfish induced an increase in mass, shell thickness, and absolute (but not relative) shell dimensions. Crayfish predation on uninduced snails was rapid, accomplished via shell-crushing and revealed strong selection for increased size (i.e., mass and shell dimensions). Conversely, crayfish predation on predator-induced snails was slower, often accomplished using an alternative mode of predation (shell-crushing 70% of the time, but shell-extraction 30% of the time), and revealed selection for wide apertures and thick shells. Crayfish selection on uninduced snails in the presence of predator-induced snails was stronger than predation on uninduced snails alone demonstrating that selection can be frequency dependent. Therefore, predator-induced changes in size and shell thickness appear to be adaptive and, along with reciprocal adjustments in the mode of predation, result in altered patterns of selection.

Keywords

Costs of defense Physa acuta Predator foraging Procambarus acutus Selection experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology’s McKinley Research Grant (JRA) and the National Science Foundation (RAR). JRA was supported by fellowships from the A.W. Mellon Foundation, a post-doc from the French C.N.R.S. (awarded to P. David and A. Charmantier), and the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent), NSF #EF-0905606. We thank A. Stoler for help with the experiment and especially D. Jones for assistance with the experiment and for measuring the snails. T.-L. Ashman, A. Biere, M. Groner, J. Hammond, J. Hoverman, P. Jarne, S. Kalisz, A. Stoler, S. Tonsor, J. Wolf, and several anonymous reviewers provided comments that improved this work. This is a contribution from the Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology.

Supplementary material

10682_2010_9394_MOESM1_ESM.doc (68 kb)
(DOC 68 kb)

References

  1. Ågren J, Schemske DW (1993) The cost of defense against herbivores: an experimental study of trichome production in Brassica rapa. Am Nat 141:338–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Auld JR, Relyea RA (2008) Interacting effects of mate availability and predation risk on life history and defense in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. J Evol Biol 21:1371–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldridge AK, Smith LD (2008) Temperature constraints on phenotypic plasticity explain biogeographic patterns in predator trophic morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 365:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berrigan D, Scheiner SM (2004) Modeling the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. In: DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM (eds) Phenotypic plasticity: functional and conceptual approaches. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 82–97Google Scholar
  5. Brodie ED III, Moore AJ, Janzen FJ (1995) Visualizing and quantifying natural selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Covich AP, Crowl TA, Alexander JE, Vaughn CC (1994) Predator-avoidance responses in freshwater decapod-gastropod interactions mediated by chemical stimuli. J North Am Benthol Soc 13:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crowl TA (1990) Life-history strategies of a freshwater snail in response to stream permanence and predation: balancing conflicting demands. Oecologia 84:238–243Google Scholar
  8. Crowl TA, Covich AP (1990) Predator-induced life-history shifts in a freshwater snail. Science 247:949–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. DeWitt TJ (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity: tests with predator-induced morphology and life history in a freshwater snail. J Evol Biol 11:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeWitt TJ, Langerhans RB (2003) Multiple prey traits, multiple predators: keys to understanding complex community dynamics. J Sea Res 49:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Hucko JA (1999) Trait compensation and cospecialization in a freshwater snail: size, shape and antipredator behaviour. Anim Behav 58:397–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Doughty P, Reznick DN (2004) Patterns and analysis of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in animals. In: DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM (eds) Phenotypic plasticity: functional and conceptual approaches. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 126–150Google Scholar
  14. Edgell TC, Rochette R (2007) Geographic correlation between reciprocally adaptive traits of an exotic decapod predator and native gastropod prey: evidence of an arms race? Evol Ecol Res 9:579–597Google Scholar
  15. Edgell TC, Brazeau C, Grahame JW, Rochette R (2008) Simultaneous defense against shell entry and shell crushing in a snail faced with the predatory shore crab Carcinus maenas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 371:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gotthard K, Nylin S (1995) Adaptive plasticity and plasticity as an adaptation: a selective review of plasticity in animal morphology and life history. Oikos 74:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvell CD, Tollrian R (1999) Why inducible defenses? In: Tollrian R, Harvell CD (eds) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–19Google Scholar
  18. Henry P-Y, Jarne P (2007) Marking hard-shelled gastropods: tag loss, impact on life-history traits, and perspectives in biology. Invert Biol 126:138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoverman JT, Auld JR, Relyea RA (2005) Putting prey back together again: integrating predator-induced behavior, morphology, and life history. Oecologia 144:481–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Juanes F (1992) Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 87:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Kishida O, Mizuta Y, Nishimura K (2006) Reciprocal phenotypic plasticity in a predator-prey interaction between larval amphibians. Ecology 87:1599–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kopp M, Tollrian R (2003) Reciprocal phenotypic plasticity in a predator-prey system: inducible offences against inducible defenses? Ecol Lett 6:742–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lande R, Arnold SJ (1983) The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Osenberg CW, Miner BG, Vonesh JR (2006) Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia 148:547–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Musser RO, Cipollini DF, Hum-Musser SM, Williams SA, Brown JK, Felton GW (2005) Evidence that the caterpillar salivary enzyme glucose oxidase provides herbivore offense in Solanaceous plants. Archiv Insect Biochem Physiol 58:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osenberg CW, Mittelbach GG (1989) Effects of body size on the predator-prey interaction between pumpkinseed sunfish and gastropods. Ecol Monogr 59:405–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ (1999) Hierarchical comparison of genetic variance-covariance matrices. I. Using the Flury hierarchy. Evolution 53:1506–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Relyea RA (2004) Integrating phenotypic plasticity when death is on the line: insights from predator-prey systems. In: Pigliucci M, Preston K (eds) The evolutionary biology of complex phenotypes. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 176–194Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Rochette R, Doyle SP, Edgell TC (2007) Interaction between an invasive decapod and a native gastropod: predator foraging tactics and prey architectural defenses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 330:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (eds) (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Trussell GC (2000a) Phenotypic clines, plasticity, and morphological trade-offs in an intertidal snail. Evolution 54:151–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Trussell GC (2000b) Predator-induced plasticity and morphological trade-offs in latitudinally separated populations of Littorina obtusata. Evol Ecol Res 2:803–822Google Scholar
  39. Turner AM (2008) Predator diet and prey behaviour: freshwater snails discriminate among closely related prey in a predator’s diet. Anim Behav 76:1211–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner AM, Bernot RJ, Boes CM (2000) Chemical cues modify species interactions: the ecological consequences of predator avoidance by freshwater snails. Oikos 88:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Buskirk J, Relyea RA (1998) Selection for phenotypic plasticity in Rana sylvatica tadpoles. Biol J Linn Soc 65:301–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Buskirk J, McCollum SA, Werner EE (1997) Natural selection for environmentally induced phenotypes in tadpoles. Evolution 51:1983–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vermeij GJ, Covich AP (1978) Coevolution of freshwater Gastropods and their predators. Am Nat 112:833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wade MJ, Kalisz S (1990) The causes of natural selection. Evolution 44:1947–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent)DurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations