Resource-dependent temporal changes in antipredator behavior of common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles

  • Anikó Kurali
  • Katalin Pásztor
  • Attila Hettyey
  • Zoltán Tóth
Original Article

Abstract

Inducible behavioral defenses against predators, and how environmental factors mediate such responses, have been the focus of behavioral ecological research for decades. However, results often remained contradictory, perhaps because the ontogenetic context was ignored. Here, we investigated how antipredator behavioral responses of common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles are affected by food limitation and how the mediated responses changed during larval development. We raised tadpoles in the presence or absence of chemical cues indicating predation risk, combined with low or high food levels, and repeatedly monitored tadpole activity and visibility. We found that the presence of cues indicating predation risk and resource availability interactively affected visibility, but not relative activity, and this interactive effect changed with time over the larval period. Visibility of tadpoles decreased with time but to a greater extent when tadpoles were exposed to cues indicating predation risk compared to control groups, and this difference was more expressed when food was limited. Activity of tadpoles also decreased during larval development but to a greater extent in case of tadpoles raised in resource-limited environment compared to the other treatments. Also, activity of tadpoles was higher when food was scarce; however, the magnitude of this effect was not influenced by the predator-cue treatment. Thus, in addition to describing the trajectories of ontogenetic changes in tadpole behavior, our study also demonstrated that responses to environmental factors, such as predation threat and food availability, vary with age.

Significance statement

Antipredator behavior is a common phenomenon in nature, and its expression is known to be influenced by the amount of available resources. How such defensive responses change with age, however, has been studied barely. By repeatedly observing common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles exposed to predators and/or food limitation, we found that tadpoles’ activity and visibility decreased with age and did so to a greater extent when tadpoles were exposed to chemical cues indicating predation risk compared to control groups. Our study demonstrated how responses to environmental factors, such as predation threat and food availability, vary with age in an important amphibian model species. These results draw attention to the importance of considering age when studying behavioral responses to environmental change and provide a possible explanation for some inconsistencies in the relevant literature.

Keywords

Toad Behavioral plasticity Feeding activity Developmental changes Trade-off 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Josh Van Buskirk for the suggestions during the planning phase and Dániel Koska for the outstanding assistance in implementing the experiments. We are grateful also to Balázs Vági, János Ujszegi, Virág Wizl, Zoltán Gál, and Zsanett Mikó for the help in animal collection and husbandry. We also would like to thank the Referees for their valuable comments which helped to improve earlier versions of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures involving animals in this study were approved by the Közép-Duna-Völgyi KTVF (KTVF 10350-2/2012) and the Ethical Commission of the MTA ATK NÖVI. All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Alford RA, Harris RN (1988) Effects of larval growth history on anuran metamorphosis. Am Nat 131:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida E, Nunes A, Andrade P, Alves S, Guerreiro C, Rebelo R (2011) Antipredator responses of two anurans towards native and exotic predators. Amphibia-Reptilia 32:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anholt BR, Werner EE (1995) Interaction between food availability and predation mortality mediated by adaptive behavior. Ecology 76:2230–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anholt BR, Earl Werner EE, Skelly DK (2000) Effect of food and predators on the activity of four larval ranid frogs. Ecology 81:3509–3521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. APHA (1985) Standard methods for the examination of wastewater, 16th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Arendt JD (1997) Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: an integration across taxa. Q Rev Biol 72:149–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2015) Body size and group size of Cuban tree frog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) tadpoles influence their escape behavior. Acta Ethol 18:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett AM, Pereira D, Murray DL (2013) Investment into defensive traits by anuran prey (Lithobates pipiens) is mediated by the starvation-predation risk trade-off. PLoS One 8:e82344CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Bókony V, Móricz ÁM, Tóth Z, Gál Z, Kurali A, Mikó Z, Pásztor K, Szederkényi M, Tóth Z, Ujszegi J, Üveges B, Krüzselyi D, Capon RJ, Hoi H, Hettyey A (2016) Variation in chemical defense among natural populations of common toad, Bufo bufo tadpoles: the role of environmental factors. J Chem Ecol 42:329–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bókony V, Üveges B, Móricz ÁM, Hettyey A (2018) Competition induces increased toxin production in toad larvae without allelopathic effects on heterospecific tadpoles. Funct Ecol 32:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bridges CM (2002) Tadpoles balance foraging and predator avoidance: effects of predation, pond drying, and hunger. J Herpetol 36:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Browne WJ, Subramanian SV, Jones K, Goldstein H (2005) Variance partitioning in multilevel logistic models that exhibit overdispersion. J R Stat Soc A Stat 168:599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cabrera-Guzmán E, Crossland MR, Brown GP, Shine R (2013) Larger body size at metamorphosis enhances survival, growth and performance of young cane toads (Rhinella marina). PLoS One 8:e70121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowlishaw G (1997) Refuge use and predation risk in a desert baboon population. Anim Behav 54:241–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cressler CE, King AA, Werner EE (2010) Interactions between behavioral and life-history trade-offs in the evolution of integrated predator-defense plasticity. Am Nat 176:276–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahlgren CP, Eggleston DB (2000) Ecological processes underlying ontogenetic habitat shifts in a coral reef fish. Ecology 81:2227–2240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dangles O, Pierre D, Christides JP, Casas J (2007) Escape performance decreases during ontogeny in wild crickets. J Exp Biol 210:3165–3170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS (1998) Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 13:77–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eklöv P, Halvarsson C (2000) The trade-off between foraging activity and predation risk for Rana temporaria in different food environments. Can J Zool 78:734–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eklöv P, Werner EE (2000) Multiple predator effects on size-dependent behavior and mortality of two species of anuran larvae. Oikos 88:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD model builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  25. Hagman M, Hayes RA, Capon RJ, Shine R (2009) Alarm cues experienced by cane toad tadpoles affect post-metamorphic morphology and chemical defenses. Funct Ecol 23:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison XA (2014) Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution. Peer J 2:e616CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvell CD (1990) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Q Rev Biol 65:323–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hensley FR (1993) Ontogenetic loss of phenotypic plasticity of age at metamorphosis in tadpoles. Ecology 74:2405–2412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hentschel BT (1999) Complex life cycles in a variable environment: predicting when the timing of metamorphosis shifts from resource dependent to developmentally fixed. Am Nat 154:549–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Herr DG (1986) On the history of ANOVA in unbalanced, factorial designs: the first 30 years. Am Stat 40:265–270Google Scholar
  31. Hettyey A, Zsarnóczai S, Vincze K, Hoi H, Laurila A (2010) Interactions between the information content of different chemical cues affect induced defenses in tadpoles. Oikos 119:1814–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hettyey A, Tóth Z, Thonhauser KE, Frommen JG, Penn DJ, Van Buskirk J (2015) The relative importance of prey-borne and predator-borne chemical cues for inducible antipredator responses in tadpoles. Oecologia 179:699–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Higginson AD, Ruxton GD (2009) Dynamic models allowing for flexibility in complex life histories accurately predict timing of metamorphosis and antipredator strategies of prey. Funct Ecol 23:1103–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hossie TJ, Murray DL (2012) Assessing behavioral and morphological responses of frog tadpoles to temporal variability in predation risk: plastic defense expression when predation risk is variable. J Zool 288:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hossie TJ, Landolt K, Murray DL (2017) Determinants and co-expression of anti-predator responses in amphibian tadpoles: a meta-analysis. Oikos 126:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jara FG, Perotti MG (2010) Risk of predation and behavioral response in three anuran species: influence of tadpole size and predator type. Hydrobiologia 644:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kats LB, Petranka JW, Sih A (1988) Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69:1865–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kishida O, Nishimura K (2005) Multiple inducible defenses against multiple predators in anuran tadpole (Rana pirica). Evol Ecol Res 7:619–631Google Scholar
  39. Kupferberg SJ (1997) The role of larval diet in anuran metamorphosis. Am Zool 37:146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kurali A, Pásztor K, Hettyey A, Tóth Z (2016) Toxin depletion has no effect on antipredator responses in common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles. Biol J Linn Soc 119:1000–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lardner B (2000) Morphological and life history responses to predators in larvae of seven anurans. Oikos 88:169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laurila A, Kujasalo J, Ranta E (1997) Different antipredator behavior in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laurila A, Kujasalo J, Ranta E (1998) Predator-induced changes in life history in two anuran tadpoles: effects of predator diet. Oikos 83:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marquis O, Saglio P, Neveu A (2004) Effects of predators and conspecific chemical cues on the swimming activity of Rana temporaria and Bufo bufo tadpoles. Arch Hydrobiol 160:153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McClure KV, Mora JW, Smith GR (2009) Effects of light and group size on the activity of wood frog tadpoles (Rana sylvatica) and their response to a shadow stimulus. Acta Herpetol 4:103–107Google Scholar
  47. McNamara JM (1987) Starvation and predation as factors limiting population size. Ecology 68:1515–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behavior of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mirza RS, Ferrari MC, Kiesecker JM, Chivers DP (2006) Responses of American toad tadpoles to predation cues: behavioural response thresholds, threat-sensitivity and acquired predation recognition. Behaviour 143:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Myers JH, Bazely D (1991) Thorns, spines, prickles, and hairs: are they stimulated by herbivory and do they deter herbivores? In: Tallamy DW, Raupp MJ (eds) Phytochemical induction by herbivores. Wiley, New York, pp 325–344Google Scholar
  51. Nunes AL, Richter-Boix A, Laurila A, Rebelo R (2013) Do anuran larvae respond behaviourally to chemical cues from an invasive crayfish predator? A community-wide study. Oecologia 171:115–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Nunes AL, Orizaola G, Laurila A, Rebelo R (2014) Rapid evolution of constitutive and inducible defenses against an invasive predator. Ecology 95:1520–1530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Preston DB, Forstner MRJ (2015) Aggregation status and cue type modify tadpole response to chemical cues. J Fish Wildl Manag 6:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org
  55. Reading CJ (1990) Palmate newt predation on common frog, Rana temporaria, and common toad, Bufo bufo tadpoles. Herpetol J 1:462–465Google Scholar
  56. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Relyea RA (2002) Costs of phenotypic plasticity. Am Nat 159:272–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Relyea RA (2004) Fine-tuned phenotypes: tadpole plasticity under 16 combinations of predators and competitors. Ecology 85:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Relyea RA, Auld JR (2005) Predator- and competitor-induced plasticity: how changes in foraging morphology affect phenotypic trade-offs. Ecology 86:1723–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Richardson JML (2001) A comparative study of activity levels in larval anurans and response to the presence of different predators. Behav Ecol 12:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2007) A comparative study of predator-induced phenotype in tadpoles across a pond permanency gradient. Hydrobiologia 583:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roth ED, Johnson JA (2004) Size-based variation in antipredator behavior within a snake (Agkistrodon piscivorus) population. Behav Ecol 15:365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2009) Interpreting the smells of predation: how alarm cues and kairomones induce different prey defenses: unravelling the chemical cues of predation. Funct Ecol 23:1114–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sillero N, Campos J, Bonardi A, Corti C, Creemers R, Crochet PA, Isailovi JC, Denoël M, Ficetola JF, Gonçalves J, Kuzmin S, Lymberakis P, Pous P, Rodríguez A, Sindaco R, Speybroeck J, Toxopeus B, Vieites DR, Vences M (2014) Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia 35(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Skaug H, Fournier D, Nielsen A, Magnusson A, Bolker B (2013) Generalized linear mixed models using AD model builder. R package version 0.7.5, http://glmmadmb.r-forge.r-project.org/
  67. Skelly DK (1995) A behavioral trade-off and its consequences for the distribution of Pseudacris treefrog larvae. Ecology 76:150–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skelly DK, Kiesecker JM (2001) Venue and outcome in ecological experiments: manipulations of larval anurans. Oikos 94:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Skelly DK, Werner EE (1990) Behavioral and life-historical responses of larval American toads to an Odonate predator. Ecology 71:2313–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith GR, Awan AR (2009) The roles of predator identity and group size in the antipredator responses of American toad (Bufo americanus) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) tadpoles to different predators. Behaviour 146:225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith GR, Burgett AA, Temple KG, Sparks KA, Winter KE (2008) The ability of three species of tadpoles to differentiate among potential fish predators. Ethology 114:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Steiner UK, Pfeiffer T (2007) Optimizing time and resource allocation trade-offs for investment into morphological and behavioral defense. Am Nat 169:118–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Toledo RC, Jared C (1995) Cutaneous granular glands and amphibian venoms. Comp Biochem Physiol A 111:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tollrian R, Harvell CD (1999) The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  75. Touchon JC, Jiménez RR, Abinette SH, Vonesh JR, Warkentin KM (2013) Behavioral plasticity mitigates risk across environments and predators during anuran metamorphosis. Oecologia 173:801–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Urban MC (2007a) Risky prey behavior evolves in risky habitats. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104:14377–14382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Urban MC (2007b) The growth–predation risk trade-off under a growing gape-limited predation threat. Ecology 88:2587–2597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Urban MC (2008) Salamander evolution across a latitudinal cline in gape-limited predation risk. Oikos 117:1037–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van Buskirk J (2000) The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 81:2813–2821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Buskirk J (2009) Natural variation in morphology of larval amphibians: phenotypic plasticity in nature? Ecol Monogr 79:681–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Watt PJ, Nottingham SF, Young S (1997) Toad tadpole aggregation behaviour: evidence for a predator avoidance function. Anim Behav 54:865–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibian larvae. The ecology and behavior of amphibians. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1993) Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat 142:242–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1988) Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill: the foraging rate-predation risk trade-off. Ecology 69:1352–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilbur HM, Morin PJ, Harris RN (1983) Salamander predation and the structure of experimental communities: anuran responses. Ecology 64:1423–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson ADM, Krause J (2012) Personality and metamorphosis: is behavioral variation consistent across ontogenetic niche shifts? Behav Ecol 23:1316–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Winkler JD, Van Buskirk J (2012) Influence of experimental venue on phenotype: multiple traits reveal multiple answers: venue and experimental outcome. Funct Ecol 26:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wohlfahrt BD, Mikolajewski J, Joop G, Vamosi SM (2007) Ontogenetic changes in the association between antipredator responses and growth variables. Ecol Entomol 32:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anikó Kurali
    • 1
  • Katalin Pásztor
    • 1
  • Attila Hettyey
    • 1
  • Zoltán Tóth
    • 1
  1. 1.Lendület Evolutionary Ecology Research Group, Plant Protection Institute, Centre for Agricultural ResearchHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations