Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Tadpole mortality varies across experimental venues: do laboratory populations predict responses in nature?

Abstract

Laboratory experiments are widely used to study how populations in nature might respond to various biological interactions, but the relevance of experiments in artificial venues is not known. We compiled mortality and growth data from 424 anuran populations carried out under laboratory, mesocosm, field enclosure, and field settings to determine if major differences exist amongst experimental venues and how this might influence experimental responses of tadpoles amongst venues. Our results show that there are fundamental differences in survival amongst venues, with the highest mortality occurring in field populations and the lowest in laboratory populations. Separation of mesocosm and field enclosure data based on the possibility of predatory interactions indicates that predation is an important factor leading to increased mortality in natural populations. Comparisons of size distributions across venues (although size data were limited for field populations) suggest that variation in tadpole size is low in natural populations compared to populations in artificial venues. We infer from this that mortality has a homogenizing effect on size in nature, resulting in natural populations that are not a random sample of hatched individuals. This finding suggests that populations reared under controlled laboratory conditions in the absence of predation (and other selective pressures) may not be representative of natural populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Bardsley L, Beebee TJC (1998) Interspecific competition between larvae is not an important structuring force in mixed communities of Rana and Bufo on an English sand-dune system. Ecography 21:449–456

  2. Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608

  3. Berven KA, Chadra BG (1988) The relationship among egg size, density and food level on larval development in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Oecologia 75:67–72

  4. Calef GW (1973) Natural mortality of tadpoles in a population of Rana aurora. Ecology 54:741–758

  5. Calisi RM, Bentley GE (2009) Lab and field experiments: are they the same animal? Horm Behav 56:1–10

  6. Callery EM (2006) There’s more than one frog in the pond: a survey of the amphibia and their contributions to developmental biology. Semin Cell Dev Biol 17:80–92

  7. Carpenter SR (1989) Replication and treatment strength in whole-lake experiments. Ecology 70:453–463

  8. Carpenter SR (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77:677–680

  9. Carpenter SR (1999) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology: reply. Ecology 80:1085–1088

  10. Cecil SG, Just JJ (1979) Survival rate, population density and development of a naturally occurring Anuran larvae (Rana catesbeiana). Copeia 1979:447–453

  11. Chalcraft DR, Binckley CA, Resetarits WJ (2005) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength: comment. Ecology 86:1061–1067

  12. Gascon C, Travis J (1992) Does the spatial scale of experimentation matter? a test with tadpoles and dragonflies. Ecology 73:2237–2243

  13. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore

  14. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190

  15. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analysis. Ecology 80(4):1142–1149

  16. Haag D, Matschonat G (2001) Limitations of controlled experimental systems as models for natural systems: a conceptual assessment of experimental practices in biogeochemistry and soil science. Sci Total Environ 277:199–216

  17. Hairston N (1989) Hard choices in ecological experimentation. Herpetologica 45:119–122

  18. Herreid CF, Kenney S (1966) Survival of Alaskan woodfrog (Rana sylvatica) larvae. Ecology 47:1039–1041

  19. Huffaker CB (1958) Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator–prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:343–383

  20. Jaeger RG, Walls SC (1989) Review: on salamander guilds and ecological methodology. Herpetologica 45:111–119

  21. Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht

  22. Kissner KJ, Weatherhead PJ (2005) Phenotypic effects on survival of neonatal northern watersnakes Nerodia sipendon. J Anim Ecol 74:259–265

  23. Lajeunesse MJ (2009) Meta-analysis and the comparative phylogenetic method. Am Nat 174(3):369–381

  24. Loman J (2004) Density regulation in tadpoles of Rana temporaria: a full pond field experiment. Ecology 85:1611–1618

  25. Morin PJ (1989) New directions in amphibian community ecology. Herpetologica 45:124–128

  26. Morin PJ (1999) Community ecology. Blackwell, Malden

  27. OECD (2008) OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals—the amphibian metamorphosis assay. In: Series on testing and assessment. Environmental Health and Safety Publications, OECD, Paris

  28. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD (1999) Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80(4):1105–1117

  29. Peacor SD, Pfister CA (2006) Experimental and model analyses of the effects of competition on individual size variation in wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles. J Anim Ecol 75:990–999

  30. Perez KO, Munch SB (2010) Extreme selection on size in the early lives of fish. Evolution 68:2450–2457

  31. Semlitsch RD (1990) Effects of body size, sibship, and tail injury on the susceptibility of tadpoles to dragonfly predation. Can J Zool 68:1027–1030

  32. Semlitsch RD, Gibbons JW (1988) Fish predation in size-structured populations of treefrog tadpoles. Oecologia 75:321–326

  33. Skelly DK (2002) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength. Ecology 83:2097–2101

  34. Skelly DK (2005) Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength: reply. Ecology 86:1068–1071

  35. Thurnheer S, Reyer H-U (2001) Spatial distribution and survival rate of waterfrog tadpoles in relation to biotic and abiotic factors: a field experiment. Amphibia-Reptilia 22:21–32

  36. Turner FB (1960) Population structure and dynamics of the western spotted frog, Rana p. pretiosa Baird & Girard, in Yellowstone Park Wyoming. Ecol Monogr 30:251–278

  37. Wilbur HM (1976) Density-dependent aspects of metamorphosis in Ambystoma and Rana sylvatica. Ecology 57:1289–1296

  38. Wilhelm FM, Schindler DW, McNaught AS (2000) The influence of experimental scale on estimating the predation rate of Gammarus lacustris (crustacea: amphipoda) on daphnia in an alpine lake. J Plankton Res 22:1719–1734

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank the authors of the original studies included in our analysis for making this review possible. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for excellent feedback that improved the manuscript. This work was funded through the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery grant to Jeff Houlahan.

Author information

Correspondence to Steven D. Melvin.

Additional information

Communicated by Steven Kohler.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Melvin, S.D., Houlahan, J.E. Tadpole mortality varies across experimental venues: do laboratory populations predict responses in nature?. Oecologia 169, 861–868 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2260-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Experimental venue
  • Mortality
  • Laboratory
  • Coefficient of variation
  • Predation
  • Selection