Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 725–737 | Cite as

Predator driven reproductive behavior in a tropical frog

  • C. Seabird McKeonEmail author
  • Kyle Summers
Original Paper


Life history trade-offs in reproductive strategy are often invoked as ecological agents of evolutionary change, despite a limited amount of experimental data from the field. The larval deposition strategy of Allobates femoralis was tested in Southeastern Peru using a blocked, fully crossed experimental design. Arrays of four pools were used to test the effects of pool size and the presence of a predatory insect (Belostomatid) on the deposition behavior of A. femoralis. Further experiments investigated the colonization of insect predators into potential larval habitats and interactions between predatory insects. Results suggest that pool size, the presence of predatory aquatic insects, and interactions between predators, influence larval deposition in A. femoralis. Similar ecological interactions may have driven toxic dendrobatids to the use of arboreal phytotelmata and associated derived reproductive strategies.


Larval habitat Life history evolution Phytotelmata Predation Indirect effects 



The authors would like to express thanks to those who have assisted in the preparation of this manuscript. Nat Seavy, Michael McCoy, Hope Klug, Gustav Paulay, Trip Lamb, Carol Goodwillie and Brian Silliman offered critical reviews. Jan Caldwell and four anonymous reviewers provided critical reviews. This work would not have been possible without funding provided by National Geographic Society (Research Grant 7243-02) and East Carolina University. Support in Peru was generously provided by Pantiacolla Nature Tours, Madre de Dios Explorations, and the Yine Project.


  1. Adams MJ, Claeson S (1998) Field response of tadpoles to conspecific and heterospecific alarm. Ethology 104(11):955–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aichinger M (1991) Tadpole transport in relation to rainfall, fecundity and body size in five species of poison-dart frogs from Amazonian Peru. Amphibia-Reptilia 12:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alton LA, White CR, Wilson RS, Franklin CE (2012) The energetic cost of exposure to UV radiation for tadpoles is greater when they live with predators. Funct Ecol 26(1):94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickford DP (2004) Differential parental care behaviors of arboreal and terrestrial microhylid frogs from Papua New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodie EDJ, Formanowicz DRJ (1983) Prey size preference of predators: differentail vulnerability of larval anurans. Herpetologica 39:67–75Google Scholar
  6. Brown JL, Twomey E, Morales V, Summers K (2008) Mating and parental care behaviors in relation to pool use in two species of Peruvian poison frogs. Behaviour 145:1139–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JL, Morales V, Summers K (2010) A key ecological factor drove the evolution of biparental care and monogamy in an amphibian. Am Nat 175:436–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JL, Twomey E, Amezquita A, De Souza MB, Caldwell JP, Lotters S, Von May R, Melo-Sampaio PR, Mejia-Vargas D, Perez-Pena P, Pepper M, Poelman EH, Sanchez-Rodriguez M, Summers K (2011) A taxonomic revision of the neotropical poison frog genus Ranitomeya (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae). Zootaxa 3083:1–120Google Scholar
  9. Caldwell JP (1993) Brazil nut fruit capsules as phytotelmata: interactions among anuran and insect larvae. Can J Zool 71:1193–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell JP, Araujo MC (1998) Cannibalistic interactions resulting from indiscriminate predatory behavior in tadpoles of Poison frogs (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Biotropica 30(1):92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capellan E, Nicieza AG (2010) Constrained plasticity in switching across life stages: pre- and post-switch predators elicit early hatching. Evol Ecol 24(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chivers DP, Wildy EL, Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR (2001) Avoidance response of juvenile pacific treefrogs to chemical cues of introduced predatory bullfrogs. J Chem Ecol 27(8):1667–1676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crump ML (1974) Reproductive strategies in a tropical anuran community. PhD, University of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  14. Duellman WE, Trueb L (1986) Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferland-Raymond B, March RE, Metcalfe CD, Murray DL (2010) Prey detection of aquatic predators: assessing the identity of chemical cues eliciting prey behavioral plasticity. Biochem Syst Ecol 38(2):169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fincke O (1992) Interspecific competition for treeholes: consequences for mating systems and coexistence in neotropical damselflies. Am Nat 139:80–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fincke O (1994) Population regulation of a tropical damselfly in the larval stage by food limitation. Oecologia 100:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsyth A (1990) Portraits of the rainforest. Camden House, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  19. Gascon C (1992) Aquatic predators and tadpole prey in central Amazonia: field data and experimental manipulations. Ecology 73(3):971–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant T, Frost DR, Caldwell JP, Gagliardo R, Haddad CFB, Kok PJR, Means DB, Noonan BP, Schargel WE, Wheeler W (2006) Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Amphibia, Athesphatanura, Dendrobatidae). Bull Amer Mus Nat Hist 299:1–262Google Scholar
  21. Haddad CFB, Prado CPA (2005) Reproductive modes in frogs and their unexpected diversity in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Bioscience 55(9):207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris R (1999) The anuran tadpole: evolution and maintenance. In: McDiarmid R, Altig R (eds) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 279–294Google Scholar
  23. Heyer WR (1969) The adaptive ecology of the species groups of the genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia, Leptodactylidae). Evolution 23:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyer WR, McDiarmid RW, Weigmann DL (1975) Tadpoles, predation and pond habitats in the tropics. Biotropica 7(2):100–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hurlbert SH, Rodriguez G, Dias dos Santos N (eds) (1981) Aquatic biota of tropical South America: being a compilation of taxonomic bibliographies for the fauna and flora of inland waters of the tropical portion of South America, vol 2. San Diego State University, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Junca FA, Altig R, Gascon C (1994) Breeding biology of Colostethus stepheni, a Dendrobatid frog with a nontransported nidicolous tadpole. Copeia 3:747–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaiser H, Altig R (1994) The atypical tadpole of the Dendrobatid frog, Colostethus chalcopis, from Martinique, French Antilles. J Herpetol 28:374–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Magnusson WE, Hero J-M (1991) Predation and the evolution of complex oviposition behaviour in Amazon rainforest frogs. Oecologia 86:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson AG, Bull CM, Wheeler LM (1992) Habitat choice and predator avoidance in tadpoles. J Herpetol 26(2):142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pröhl H, Hödl W (1999) Parental investment, potential reproductive rates, and mating system in the strawberry dart-poison frog, Dendrobates pumilio. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46(4):215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pyron RA, Wiens JJ (2011) A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. Mol Phyl Evol 61(2):543–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rausher MD (1979) Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three related butterflies. Ecology 60(3):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reiskind MH, Wilson ML (2004) Culex restuans (Diptera: Culicidae) oviposition behavior determined by larval habitat quality and quantity in Southeastern Michigan. J Med Entomol 42(2):179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reznick D, Travis J (1996) The empirical study of adaptation in natural populations. In: Rose M, Lauder GV (eds) Adaptation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 243–289Google Scholar
  35. Ringler E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hodl W (2012) The female perspective of mating in Allobates femoralis, a territorial frog with paternal care—a spatial and genetic analysis. Plos One 7(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040237
  36. Roithmair ME (1992) Territoriality and male mating success in the dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae, Anura). Ethology 92:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roithmair ME (1994) Field studies on reproductive behavior in two dart-poison frog species (Epipedobates femoralis, Epipedobates trivittatus) in Amazonian Peru. Herpetol J 4:77–85Google Scholar
  38. Roth AH, Jackson JF (1987) The effect of pool size on recruitment of predatory insects and on mortality in a larval anuran. Herpetologica 43(2):224–232Google Scholar
  39. Salthe SN (1969) Reproductive modes and the number and sizes of ova in the urodeles. Am Midland Nat 81(2):467–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salthe SN, Duellman W (1973) Quantitative constraints associated with reproductive mode in anurans. In: Vial J (ed) Evolutionary biology of the anurans: contemporary research on major problems. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, pp 229–249Google Scholar
  41. Schulte LM, Yeager J, Schulte R, Veith M, Werner P, Beck LA, Loetters S (2011) The smell of success: choice of larval rearing sites by means of chemical cues in a Peruvian poison frog. Anim Behav 81(6):1147–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Semlitsch RD, Gibbons JW (1988) Fish predation in size-structured populations of treefrog tadpoles. Oecologia 75:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simon MP (1983) The ecology of parental care in a terrestrial breeding frog from New Guinea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spieler M, Linsenmair KE (1997) Choice of optimal oviposition sites by Hoplobatrachus occipitalis (Anura: Ranidae) in an unpredictable and patchy environment. Oecologia 109(2):184–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Summers K (1989) Sexual selection and intra-female competition in the green poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus. Anim Behav 37:797–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Summers K (1990) Paternal care and the cost of plygyny in the green dart-poison frog, Dendrobates auratus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Summers K (1992) Mating strategies in two species of dart-poison frog: a comparative study. Anim Behav 43:907–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Summers K, McKeon CS (2004) The evolutionary ecology of phytotelmata use in Neotropical poison frogs. In: Lehtinen RM (ed) Ecology and evolution of Phytotelm-breeding Anurans, vol. 193, Misc Pubs Mus Zool U Mich, pp 55–73Google Scholar
  49. Summers K, McKeon CS, Heying H (2006) The evolution of parental care and egg size: a comparative analysis in frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B 273(1587):687–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Summers K, McKeon CS, Heying H, Hall J, Patrick W (2007) Social and environmental influences on egg size evolution in frogs. J Zool 271(2):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Terborgh J (1990) Overview of research at Cocha Cashu. In: Gentry AH (ed) Four neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 48–59Google Scholar
  52. Townsend DS, Stewart MM, Pough FH (1984) Male parental care and its adaptive significance in a neotropical frog. Anim Behav 32:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ursprung E, Ringler M, Jehle R, Hodl W (2011) Strong male/male competition allows for nonchoosy females: high levels of polygynandry in a territorial frog with paternal care. Mol Ecol 20(8):1759–1771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Soluk DA (2005) Multiple predator effects result in risk reduction for the prey across multiple prey densities. Oecologia 144:472–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vance-Chalcraft HD, Rosenheim JA, Vonesh JR, Osenberg CW, Sih A (2007) The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: a meta-analysis. Ecology 88(11):2689–2696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wassersug RJ (1975) The adaptive significance of the tadpole stage with comments on the maintenance of complex life cycles in Anurans. Am Zool 15:405–417Google Scholar
  57. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilbur HM (1980) Complex life cycles. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:67–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson DE, Sandoval A (eds) (1996) Manu: the biodiversity of southeastern Peru. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian Marine StationFort PierceUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations