Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 178, Issue 3, pp 931–941 | Cite as

Environmental harshness shapes life-history variation in an Australian temporary pool breeding frog: a skeletochronological approach

  • Jane ReniersEmail author
  • Luc Brendonck
  • J. Dale Roberts
  • Wim Verlinden
  • Bram Vanschoenwinkel
Global change ecology - Original research

Abstract

For many amphibians, high temperatures and limited precipitation are crucial habitat characteristics that limit species ranges and modulate life-history characteristics. Although knowledge of the ability of amphibians to cope with such environmental harshness is particularly relevant in the light of ongoing environmental change, relatively little is known about natural variation in age, maturation and associated life-history traits across species’ ranges. We used the analysis of growth rings in bones to investigate the link between environmental harshness and life-history traits, including age and body size distribution, in specimens from 20 populations of the Australian bleating froglet, Crinia pseudinsignifera. Despite the short lifespan of the species, bone slides revealed geographic variation in average age, body size and reproductive investment linked to variation in temperature and rainfall. We found no difference in age at maturation in different climatic harshness regimes. Frogs from harsher environments invested less in their first reproductive event but grew older than their counterparts in more benign environments, thereby allowing for more reproductive events and buffering them against the increased chance of reproductive failure in the harsher environments. For individual frogs, climatic harshness experienced during an individual’s life promoted larger body size. Overall, these results illustrate how bone structure analyses from preserved specimens allow both the testing of ecogeographic hypotheses and the assessment of the adaptive potential of species in the light of environmental change.

Keywords

Amphibia Climate variation Life history Body size Rock pool Skeletochronology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Jane Reniers is currently supported by a PhD grant from the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders. JD Roberts acknowledges support from the University of Western Australia and the Australian Research Council (Grant Nos. A18715137 and A19030931). We would also like to thank Thomas Stewart for the practical assistance with the skeletochronology.

Supplementary material

442_2015_3258_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Alho JS, Herczeg G, Laugen AT, Räsänen K, Laurila A, Merilä J (2011) Allen’s rule revisited: quantitative genetics of extremity length in the common frog along a latitudinal gradient. J Evol Biol 24:59–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton KG (2002) Do amphibians follow Bergmann’s rule? Can J Zool 80:708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson D (1994) Temperature and organism size—a biological law for ectotherms? Adv Ecol Res 26:1–86Google Scholar
  4. Barron O, Silberstein R, Ali R, Donohue R, McFarlane DJ, Davies P, Hodgson G, Smart N, Donn M (2012) Climate change effects on water-dependent ecosystems in south-western Australia. J Hydrol 434–435:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayly I (1982) Invertebrate fauna and ecology of temporary pools on granite outcrops in southern Western Australia. Mar Freshw Res 33:599–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berven KA, Gill DE (1983) Interpreting geographic variation in life-history traits. Am Zool 23:85–97Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Loder N (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann’s rule. Divers Distrib 5:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce R, Castanet J, Françillon-Vieillot H (2002) Skeletochronological analysis of variation in age structure, body size and life history in three species of desmogathine salamanders. Herpetologica 58:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bull JJ, Shine R (1979) Iteroparous animals that skip opportunities for reproduction. Am Nat 114: 296–303Google Scholar
  10. Bulmer MG (1985) Selection for iteroparity in a variable environment. Am Nat 126:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne PG (2004) Male sperm expenditure under sperm competition risk and intensity in quacking frogs. Behav Ecol 15:857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caetano M, Castanet J (1993) Variability and microevolutionary patterns in Triturus marmoratus from Portugal: age, size, longevity and individual growth. Amphib Reptil 14:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen W, Tang ZH, Fan XG, Wang Y, Pike DA (2013) Maternal investment increases with altitude in a frog on the Tibetan Plateau. J Evol Biol 26:2710–2715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cragg JB (1968) Advances in ecological research, vol 5. Academic Press Inc, London, p 278Google Scholar
  15. Cushman JH, Lawton JH, Manly BFJ (1993) Latitudinal patterns in European ant assemblages: variation in species richness and body size. Oecologia 95:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Day T, Rowe L (2002) Developmental thresholds and the evolution of reaction norms for age and size at life history transitions. Am Nat 159:338–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driscoll DA (1999) Skeletochronological assessment of age structure and population stability for two threatened frog species. Aust J Ecol 24:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duarte H, Tejedo M, Katzenberger M, Marangoni F, Baldo D, Francisco B, Marti DA, Richter Boix A, Gonzalez-Voyer G (2012) Can amphibians take the heat? Vulnerability to climate warming in subtropical and temperate larval amphibian communities. Glob Chang Biol 18:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dziminski MA, Roberts JD (2006) Fitness consequences of variable maternal provisioning in quacking frogs (Crinia georgiana). J Evol Biol 19:144–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dziminski MA, Vercoe PE, Roberts JD (2009) Variable offspring provisioning and fitness: a direct test in the field. Funct Ecol 23:164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eaton BR, Paszkowski CA, Kristensen K, Hiltz M (2005) Life-history variation among populations of Canadian Toads in Alberta, Canada. Can J Zool 83:1421–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elmberg J (1991) Ovarian cyclicity and fecundity in boreal common frogs Rana temporaria L. Along a climatic gradient. Funct Ecol 5(3):340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forgy E (1965) Cluster analysis of multivariate data: efficiency vs interpretability of classification. Biometrics 21:768Google Scholar
  24. Forsman A (1991) Variation in sexual size dimorphism and maximum body size among adder populations: effects of prey size. J Anim Ecol 60:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gardner JL, Peters A, Kearney MR, Joseph L, Heinsohn R (2011) Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends Ecol Evol 26:285–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotthard K (2001) Growth strategies of ectothermic animals in temperate environments. In: Atkinson D, Thorndyke M (eds) Environment and animal development. Bios Scientific Publishers, Oxford, p 287Google Scholar
  27. Hamer AJ, McDonnell MJ (2008) Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanizing world: a review. Biol Conserv 141:2432–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartigan JA, Wong MA (1979) Algorithm AS 136: a K-Means clustering algorithm. Appl Stat 28(1):100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hemelaar A (1988) Age, growth and other population characteristics of Bufo bufo from different latitudes and altitudes. J Herpetol 22:369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hjernquist MB, Söderman F, Jönsson FK, Herczeg G, Laurila A, Merilä J (2012) Seasonality determines patterns of growth and age structure over a geographic gradient in an ectothermic vertebrate. Oecologia 170:641–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huston MA (1999) Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86:393–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Irving DB, Whetton P, Mosie AF (2012) Climate projections for Australia: a first glance at CMIP5. Aust Meteorol Oceanogr J 62:211–225Google Scholar
  33. Jönsson KI, Herczeg G, O’Hara RB, Söderman F, Ter Schure AF, Larsson P, Merilä J (2009) Sexual patterns of prebreeding energy reserves in the common frog Rana temporaria along a latitudinal gradient. Ecography 32(5):831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keighery G (2004) A biodiversity survey of the Western Australian agricultural zone. Western Australian MuseumGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller I, Alexander JM, Holderegger R, Edwards PJ (2013) Widespread phenotypic and genetic divergence along altitudinal gradients in animals. J Evol Biol 26:2527–2543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keppel G, Wardell-Johnson GW (2012) Refugia: keys to climate change management. Glob Chang Biol 18:2389–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kleineberg SE, Smirina EM (1969) A contribution to the method of age determination in amphibians. Zool Zh 48:1090–1094Google Scholar
  38. Kozłowski J (1992) Optimal allocation of resources to growth and reproduction: implications for age and size at maturity. Trends Ecol Evol 7:15–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leclair MH, Leclari RJR, Gallant J (2005) Application of skeletochronology to a population of Pelobates cultripes (Anura: Pelobatidae) from Portugal. J Herpetol 39:199–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leskovar C, Oromi N, Sanuy D, Sinsch U (2006) Demographic life history traits of reproductive natterjack toads (Bufo calamita) vary between northern and southern latitudes. Amphib Reptil 27:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liao WB, Lu X (2010) A skeletochronological estimation of age and body size by the Sichuan torrent frog (Amolops mantzorum) between two populations at different altitudes. Anim Biol 60:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lind MI, Persbo F, Johansson F (2008) Pool desiccation and developmental thresholds in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Proc R Soc Lond Biol 275:1073–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindsey CC (1966) Body sizes of poikilotherm vertebrates at different latitudes. Evolution 2:456–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Littlejohn MJ (1959) Call differentiation in a complex of seven species of Crinia (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Evolution 13:452–468Google Scholar
  45. Ma LT, Tong L, Lu X (2009) Variation of body size, age structure and growth of a temperate frog, Rana chensinensis, over an elevational gradient in Northern China. Amphib Reptil 30:111–117Google Scholar
  46. MacNally R (1981) On the reproductive energetics of chorusing males: energy depletion profiles, restoration, and growth in two sympatric species of Ranidella (Anura). Oecologia 51:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probabilities, vol 1, pp 281–296Google Scholar
  48. Marian MP, Pandian TJ (1985) Effect of temperature on development, growth and bioenergetics of the bullfrog tadpole (Rana tigrina). J Therm Biol 10:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McClelland BE, Wilczynski W, Ryan MJ (1996) Correlations between call characteristics and morphology in male cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). J Exp Biol 199:1907–1919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Meiri S (2011) Bergmann's Rule–what's in a name? Global Ecol Biogeogr 20(1):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miaud C, Guyétant R, Elmberg J (1999) Variations in life-history traits in the common frog Rana temporaria (Amphibia: Anura): a literature review and new data from the French Alps. J Zool Soc Lond 249:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miaud C, Guyetant R, Faber H (2000) Age, size and growth of the alpine newt, Triturus alpestris (Urodela: salamandridae) at high altitude and a review of life history trait variation throughout its range. Herpetologica 56:135–144Google Scholar
  53. Moritz C, Agudo R (2013) The future of species under climate change: resilience or decline? Science 341:504–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morrison C, Hero JM (2003) Geographic variation in life-history characteristics of amphibians: a review. J Anim Ecol 72:270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newman RA, Dunham AE (1994) Size at metamorphosis and water loss in a desert anuran (Scaphiopus couchii). Copeia 2:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Olalla-Tárraga MÁ (2011) “Nullius in Bergmann” or the pluralistic approach to ecogeographical rules: a reply to Watt et al. (2010). Oikos 120:1441–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olalla-Tárraga MÁ, Rodríguez MÁ (2006) Energy and interspecific body size patterns of amphibian faunas in Europe and North America: anurans follow Bergmann’s rule, urodeles its converse. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:606–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Orzack SH, Tuljapurkar S (2001) Reproductive effort in variable environments, or environmental variation is for the birds. Ecology 82:2659–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Özdemir N, Altunışık A, Ergül T, Gül S, Tosunoğlu M, Cadeddu G, Giacoma C (2012) Variation in body size and age structure among three Turkish populations of the treefrog Hyla arborea. Amphib Reptil 33:25–35Google Scholar
  60. Peters RH (1983) Ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Räsänen K, Laurila A, Merilä J (2005) Maternal investment in egg size: environment- and population-specific effects on offspring performance. Oecologia 142:546–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rebelo R, Caetano MH (1995) Use of skeletochronological method for ecodemographical studies on Salamandra salamandra gallaica from Portugal. In: Llorente GA, Montori A, Santos X, Carretero MA (eds) Scientia Herpetologica. Asociación Herpetológica Española, Barcelona, pp 135–140Google Scholar
  63. Rodriguez MA, Lopez-Sanudo IL, Hawkins BA (2006) The geographic distribution of mammal body size in Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rozenblut B, Ogielska M (2005) Development and growth of long bones in European water frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae), with remarks on age determination. J Morphol 265:304–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sagor E, Quellet M, Barten E, Green DM (1998) Skeletochronology and geographic variation in Age structure in the Wood frog, Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 32:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Santana SE, Alfaro JL, Alfaro ME (2012) Adaptive evolution of facial colour patterns in Neotropical primates. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279(1736):2204–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schäuble CS (2004) Variation in body size and sexual dimorphism across geographical and environmental space in the frogs Limnodynastes tasmaniensis and L. peronii. Biol J Linn Soc 82:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmidt-Neilsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important?. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stillwell RC (2010) Are latitudinal clines in body size adaptive? Oikos 119(9):1387–1390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tracy CR, Christian KA, Tracy CR (2010) Not just small, wet, and cold: effects of body size and skin resistance on thermoregulation and arboreality of frogs. Ecology 91:1477–1484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tuljapurkar S (1990) Delayed reproduction and fitness in variable environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:1139–1143PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tyler MJ, Dought P (2009) Field guide to frogs of Western Australia. Western Australian Museum, PerthGoogle Scholar
  74. Watt C, Mitchell S, Salewski V (2010) Bergmann's rule; a concept cluster? Oikos 119(1):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Withers PC (1995) Cocoon formation and structure in the aestivating Australian desert frogs, Neobatrachus and Cyclorana. Aust J Zool 43:429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yom-Tov Y, Geffen E (2006) Geographic variation in body size: the effects of ambient temperature and precipitation. Oecologia 148(2):213–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Reniers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luc Brendonck
    • 1
  • J. Dale Roberts
    • 2
  • Wim Verlinden
    • 1
  • Bram Vanschoenwinkel
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution and ConservationKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of Western AustraliaAlbanyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of BiologyVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations