, Volume 573, Issue 1, pp 39–44 | Cite as

Behavioural response of bullfrog tadpoles to chemical cues of predation risk are affected by cue age and water source

Primary Research Paper


When confronted by signals of predators presence, many aquatic organisms modify their phenotype (e.g., behaviour or morphology) to reduce their risk of predation. A principal means by which organisms assess predation risk is through chemical cues produced by the predators and/or prey during predation events. Such responses to predation risk can directly affect prey fitness and indirectly affect the fitness of species with which the prey interacts. Accurate assessment of the cue will affect the adaptive nature, and hence evolution, of the phenotypic response. It is therefore, important to understand factors affecting the assessment of chemical cues. Here I examined the effect of the age of chemical cues arising from an invertebrate predator, a larval dragonfly (Anax junius), which was fed bullfrog tadpoles, on the behavioural response (activity level and position) of bullfrog tadpoles. The bullfrog response to chemical cues declined as a function of chemical cue age, indicating the degradation of the chemical cue was on the order of 2–4 days. Further, the decay occurred more rapidly when the chemical cue was placed in pond water rather than well water. These results indicate a limitation of the tadpoles to interpret factors that affect the magnitude of the chemical cue and hence accurately assess predation risk. These findings also have implications for experimental design and the adaptation of phenotypic responses to chemical cues of predation risk.


kairomone chemical cue nonlethal effect trait-mediated Rana catesbeiana phenotypic plasticity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agrawal A. A. (2001). Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294: 321–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chivers D. P. and Smith R. J. F. (1998). Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator–prey systems: a review and prospect us. Écoscience 5: 338–352Google Scholar
  3. Kats L. B. and Dill L. M. (1998). The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Écoscience 5: 361–394Google Scholar
  4. Lass S. and Spaak P. (2003). Chemically induced anti-predator defences in plankton: a review. Hydrobiologia 491: 221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lima S. L. (1998). Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioural, reproductive and ecological perspectives. Stress and Behaviour 27: 215–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lima S. L. and Bednekoff P. A. (1999). Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behaviour: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. American Naturalist 153: 649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Loose C. J. and Dawidowicz P. (1994). Trade-offs in diel vertical migration by zooplankton – the costs of predator avoidance. Ecology 75: 2255–2263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Loose C. J., Vonelert E. and Dawidowicz P. (1993). Chemically-induced vertical migration in daphnia – a bioassay for kairomones exuded by fish. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 126: 329–337Google Scholar
  9. Peacor S. D. (2002). Positive effects of predators on prey growth rate through induced modifications of prey behavior. Ecology Letters 5: 77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peacor S. D. and Werner E. E. (2001). The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 3904–3908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Persons M. H., Walker S. E., Rypstra A. L. and Marshall S. D. (2001). Wolf spider predator avoidance tactics and survival in the presence of diet-associated predator cues (Araneae: Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour 61: 43–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Relyea R. A. (2003). How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84: 1827–1839Google Scholar
  13. Schmitz O. J., Krivan V. and Ovadia O. (2004). Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology Letters 7: 153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schoeppner N. M. and Relyea R. A. (2005). Damage, digestion and defense: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defenses. Ecology Letters 8: 505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. SPSS 12.0 for Windows, Rel. 12.0.0., 2003 Chicago: SPSS IncGoogle Scholar
  16. Stearns S. C. (1989). The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. BioScience 39: 436–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tollrian, R. and & C. D. Harvell (eds), (1999). The Ecology and Evolution of Inducible Defenses. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. Turner A. M. and Montgomery S. L. (2003). Spatial and temporal scales of predator avoidance: experiments with fish and snails. Ecology 84: 616–622Google Scholar
  19. Van Buskirk J. and Arioli M. (2002). Dosage response of an induced defense: how sensitive are tadpoles to predation risk?. Ecology 83: 1580–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wade J. W. (1992). Sewall Wright: gene interaction and the Shifting Balance Theory. In: Antonovics, J. and Futuyma, D. (eds) Oxford Surveys of Evolutionary Biology VI, pp 35–62. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Weber A. (2003). More than one ‘fish kairomone’? Perch and stickleback kairomones affect Daphnia life history traits differently. Hydrobiologia 498: 143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Werner E. E. and Anholt B. R. (1996). Predator-induced behavioural indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77: 157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Werner E. E. and Peacor S. D. (2003). A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecology 84: 1083–1100Google Scholar
  24. West-Eberhard M. J. (1989). Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 249–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA)Ann ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations