Food or fear: hunger modifies responses to injured conspecifics in tadpoles
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Bradley E. Carlson (1) (3)
Jillian C. Newman (1) (2)
Tracy Langkilde (1) - 关键词：Alarm cues ; Antipredator behavior ; Cannibalism ; Hunger ; Predation risk ; State ; dependent behavior
- 刊名：Hydrobiologia
- 出版年：2015
- 出版时间：January 2015
- 年：2015
- 卷：743
- 期：1
- 页码：299-308
- 全文大小：331 KB
- 参考文献：1. Altig, R., M. R. Whiles & C. L. Taylor, 2007. What do tadpoles really eat? Assessing the trophic status of an understudied and imperiled group of consumers in freshwater habitats. Freshwater Biology 52: 386-95. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01694.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
2. Altwegg, R., 2003. Hungry predators render predator-avoidance behavior in tadpoles ineffective. Oikos 100: 311-16. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12206.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
3. Alvarez, D. & A. G. Nicieza, 2002. Effects of temperature and food quality on anuran larval growth and metamorphosis. Functional Ecology 16: 640-48. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00658.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
4. Biro, P. A., M. V. Abrahams, J. R. Post & E. A. Parkinson, 2004. Predators select against high growth rates and risk-taking behaviour in domestic trout populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271: 2233-237. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2861" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
5. Bridges, C. M., 2002. Tadpoles balance foraging and predator avoidance: effects of predation, pond drying, and hunger. Journal of Herpetology 36: 627-34. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2002)036[0627:TBFAPA]2.0.CO;2" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
6. Carlson, B. E. & T. Langkilde, 2013. A common marking technique affects tadpole behavior and risk of predation. Ethology 119: 167-77. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eth.12050" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
7. Carlson B. E. & T. Langkilde, 2014. Predation risk in tadpole populations shapes behavioural responses of prey but not strength of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Oikos (in press).
8. Cerri, R. D. & D. F. Fraser, 1983. Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. American Naturalist 121: 552-61. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/284082" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
9. Chivers, D. P. & M. C. O. Ferrari, 2014. Social learning of predators by tadpoles: does food restriction alter the efficacy of tutors as information sources? Animal Behaviour 89: 93-7. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.018" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
10. Chivers, D. P., M. H. Puttlitz & A. R. Blaustein, 2000. Chemical alarm signaling by reticulate sculpins, / Cottus perplexus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57: 347-52. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007616212592" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
11. Clark, C. W., 1994. Antipredator behavior and the asset-protection principle. Behavioral Ecology 5: 159-70. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/beheco/5.2.159" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
12. Collins, A. M. & G. W. Gerald, 2009. Attraction of flatworms at various hunger levels toward cues from an odonate predator. Ethology 115: 449-56. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01616.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
13. Crump, M., 1990. Possible enhancement of growth in tadpoles through cannibalism. Copeia 1990: 560-64. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1446361" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
14. Damsgird, B. & L. M. Dill, 1998. Risk-taking behavior in weight-compensating coho salmon, / Oncorhynchus kisutch. Behavioral Ecology 9: 26-2. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/beheco/9.1.26" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
15. Eklov, P. & E. E. Werner, 2000. Multiple predator effects on size-dependent behavior and mortality of two species of anuran larvae. Oikos 88: 250-58. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880203.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
16. Ferner, M. C., D. L. Smee & Y. P. Chang, 2005. Cannibalistic crabs respond to the scent of injured conspecifics: danger or dinner? Marine Ecology Progress Series 300: 193-00. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps300193" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
17. Ferrari, M. C. O., F. Messier & D. P. Chivers, 2007. Degradation of chemical alarm cues under natural conditions: risk assessment by larval woodfrogs. Chemoecology 17: 263-66. class="external" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00049-007-0381-0" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
18. Ferrari, M. C. O., B. D. Wisenden & D. P. Chiver - 作者单位：Bradley E. Carlson (1) (3)
Jillian C. Newman (1) (2)
Tracy Langkilde (1)
1. Department of Biology, Ecology Intercollege Graduate Degree Program, and Center for Brain, Behavior, and Cognition, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
3. Department of Biology, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, IN, 47933, USA
2. Department of Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA - ISSN：1573-5117
文摘
Animals must balance the conflicting needs to forage and avoid predation. The optimal balance of risk and reward should depend on the individual’s state, particularly hunger status. Satiated individuals are hypothesized to react more strongly to risk than hungry individuals, for which the necessity for food overrides perceived danger. We tested this in wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpoles by comparing the response of fasted and fed tadpoles to injured conspecifics (alarm cue) and uninjured conspecifics (control). Food restriction significantly affected the activity levels of tadpoles and the impact of injured conspecific cues on activity. Fed tadpoles responded little to these cues, tending to decrease activity. Hungry tadpoles were more active overall and responded to injured conspecific cues by increasing activity. We propose that hungry tadpoles increase their activity in response to an injured conspecific because, in addition to indicating danger, this cue represents a nutrient source for this opportunistically cannibalistic species, and hungry tadpoles should thus adopt risky behavior to acquire this valuable resource. Differences in hunger may therefore explain variation among studies of tadpole responses to injured conspecifics. Future studies in aquatic organisms should consider the role of hunger status when assessing antipredator behavior.