The effects of larval predation on the morphology of juvenile wood frogs (Rana sylvatica)

Similar documents
Plastic responses in juvenile wood frog (Rana sylvatica) morphology from predation. BIOS: 569: Practicum in Field Biology. Patrick Roden-Reynolds

3/24/10. Amphibian community ecology. Lecture goal. Lecture concepts to know

Phenotypic variation 3/6/17. Phenotypic plasticity in amphibians

Effects of Predator Chemical Cues On Snail Behavior

Survey of Invertebrate Species in Vernal Ponds at UNDERC. Joseph Lucero. 447 Knott Hall. University of Notre Dame

The effects of UV-B on the survival of North American Amphibian species

The impact of larval predators and competitors on the morphology and fitness of juvenile treefrogs

Getting out alive: how predators avect the decision to metamorphose

Intestinal, Body and Tail Plasticity in Rhinella. schneideri (Bufonidae) Tadpoles Induced by a. Predator Insect (Belostoma elegans)

Ontogenetic Effects of Hatching Plasticity in the Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) due to Egg and Larval Predators

Adaptive Traits. Natural selection results in evolution of adaptations. Adaptation: trait that enhances an organism's survival and reproduction

MORPHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL PLASTICITY OF LARVAL ANURANS IN RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT PREDATORS

Behavioral Resource Partitioning among Rana Species in Northern Wisconsin. BIOS : Practicum in Field Biology. Claire K.

Saprolegnia: Amphibian Killer? Discussion Outline. What is Saprolegnia? 4/6/2009. What is Saprolegnia? What does Saprolegnia do to amphibians?

Environmental Factors Influencing Wood Frog (Lythobates sylvaticus) Tadpole Size

Goal of the Lecture. Lecture Structure. Tadpole Development, Ecology, and Metamorphosis

What Shapes an Ecosystem? Section 4-2 pgs 90-97

BIOS 569: Practicum in Field Biology. Impact of DOC in the Zooplankton Community Composition. Amarilis Silva Rodriguez. Advisor: Patrick Kelly

The effects of predator chemical cues on the behavior of spotted salamander larvae (Ambystoma maculatum)

Phenotypically Plastic Responses of Larval Tiger Salamanders, Ambystoma tigrinum, to Different Predators

Background for Dynamic Nature of Scientific Knowledge

Biology Principles of Ecology Oct. 20 and 27, 2011 Natural Selection on Gall Flies of Goldenrod. Introduction

Assessment Schedule 2013 Biology: Demonstrate understanding of the responses of plants and animals to their external environment (91603)

Population Ecology. Study of populations in relation to the environment. Increase population size= endangered species

Predator Survival Tactics and Use of Habitat Cover in Rana Catesbeiana.

Predator-Induced Plasticity in Spotted Salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum)

Plastic response to pond drying in tadpoles Rana temporaria: tests of cost models

Population Ecology. Chapter 44

A. camouflage B. hibernation C. migration D. communication. 8. Beetles, grasshoppers, bees, and ants are all.

History and meaning of the word Ecology A. Definition 1. Oikos, ology - the study of the house - the place we live

Chapter Chemical Uniqueness 1/23/2009. The Uses of Principles. Zoology: the Study of Animal Life. Fig. 1.1

Additional Case Study: Calculating the Size of a Small Mammal Population

TEMPERATURE, PREDATION RISK AND GRASSHOPPER BEHAVIOR. BIOS 569 Field Practicum in Environmental Biology. Molly Chambers

8/23/2014. Introduction to Animal Diversity

1. The basic structural and physiological unit of all living organisms is the A) aggregate. B) organelle. C) organism. D) membrane. E) cell.

Environments and Organisms Test Review

PREDATOR- AND COMPETITOR-INDUCED PLASTICITY: HOW CHANGES IN FORAGING MORPHOLOGY AFFECT PHENOTYPIC TRADE-OFFS

Georgia Performance Standards for Urban Watch Restoration Field Trips

CHAPTER. Population Ecology

Principles of Ecology

I. Multiple choice. Select the best answer from the choices given and circle the appropriate letter of that answer.

RESOURCE COMPETITION MODIFIES THE STRENGTH OF TRAIT- MEDIATED PREDATOR PREY INTERACTIONS: A META-ANALYSIS

Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles: extension or innovation?

PSSA Science Review. Organisms and the Environment. Organisms and the Environment


Predator-Avoidance Responses in Native and Exotic Freshwater Snail Species BIOS 35502: Practicum in Field Biology Danielle Patzner Advisor: Todd

Darwin s theory of evolution by natural selection

Testing adaptive hypotheses What is (an) adaptation? Testing adaptive hypotheses What is (an) adaptation?

LABORATORY #12 -- BIOL 111 Predator-Prey cycles

PREDATOR EFFECTS ON AN ASSEMBLAGE OF CONSUMERS THROUGH INDUCED CHANGES IN CONSUMER FORAGING BEHAVIOR


5. Reproduction and Recruitment

Evolution. A. cloning B. mutation C. selective breeding D. natural selection

2001 A.B. Biology with Specialization in Ecology and Evolution, U. of Chicago Graduated with General Honors and Special Honors in Biology

Chapter 5. Evolution of Biodiversity

If you Build It, They Will Come

Evolution of phenotypic traits

7. Where do most crustaceans live? A. in the air B. in water C. on the land D. underground. 10. Which of the following is true about all mammals?

Amphibian Population Declines and deformities are useful phenomena to illustrate concepts in evolutionary biology

BIO S380T Page 1 Summer 2005: Exam 2

Community and Population Ecology Populations & Communities Species Diversity Sustainability and Environmental Change Richness and Sustainability

History and meaning of the word Ecology A. Definition 1. Oikos, ology - the study of the house - the place we live

Effects of competition and predation on the feeding rate of freshwater snails

Marine Resources Development Foundation/MarineLab Grades: 9, 10, 11, 12 States: AP Biology Course Description Subjects: Science

Adaptation. Biotic and Abiotic Environments. Eric R. Pianka

4-2 What Shapes an Ecosystem?

TRAIT-MEDIATED INDIRECT INTERACTIONS IN A SIMPLE AQUATIC FOOD WEB


Survival of the Sweetest

Chapter 4 Ecosystems and Living Organisms

Evolution Questions Name: Date: Termite Percentage of Surviving Generation Termites After Spraying page 1

1 29 g, 18% Potato chips 32 g, 23% 2 30 g, 18% Sugar cookies 35 g, 30% 3 28 g, 19% Mouse food 27 g, 18%

Aquatic mesocosms. Raymond D. Semlitsch and Michelle D. Boone. 6.1 Introduction

Comparing Recognition of Predator Kairomones in Vernal Pool and Lake Tadpoles. BIOS 35502: Practicum in Environmental Field Biology.

Plasticity in Metamorphic Traits of Rice Field Frog (Rana limnocharis) Tadpoles: The Interactive Effects of Rearing Temperature and Food Level

Theory a well supported testable explanation of phenomenon occurring in the natural world.

Predicting community outcomes from pairwise interactions: integrating density- and trait-mediated effects

Biology. Slide 1 of 41. End Show. Copyright Pearson Prentice Hall

Treasure Coast Science Scope and Sequence

MS-LS3-1 Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University. Bhopal M.sc Zoology Final Year

SHIFTS IN LIFE-HISTORY TRAITS AS A RESPONSE TO CANNIBALISM IN LARVAL LONG-TOED SALAMANDERS (Ambystoma macrodactylum)

Evolutionary change. Evolution and Diversity. Two British naturalists, one revolutionary idea. Darwin observed organisms in many environments

ORIGIN OF EVOLUTIONARY NOVELTIES

Evolution Common Assessment 1

LECTURE 08. Today: 3/3/2014

NGSS Example Bundles. Page 1 of 23

Where Do Bat Wings Come From?

MS-LS4-1 Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity

CONTEXT DEPENDENCE OF NONLETHAL EFFECTS OF A PREDATOR ON PREY GROWTH

Chapter 6 Lecture. Life History Strategies. Spring 2013

and metamorphosis in anuran larvae

at some point of their lives (Just et al., 1981). Such a change normally involves the

Kingdom Animalia. Zoology the study of animals

Adaptive plasticity in stressful environments: acidity constrains inducible defences in Rana arvalis

Adverse effects of environmentally relevant dietary mercury exposure in larvae of the southern leopard frog, Rana sphenocephala

Evaluate evidence provided by data from many scientific disciplines to support biological evolution. [LO 1.9, SP 5.3]

WTHS Biology Keystone Exams

BELL RINGER QUICK REVIEW. What is the difference between an autotroph and heterotroph? List 4 abiotic factors in plant growth.

Chapter 9 Population Dynamics, Carrying Capacity, and Conservation Biology

Transcription:

The effects of larval predation on the morphology of juvenile wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) Maria Correa BIOS 35502: Practicum in Field Biology Advisor: Dr. Matthew Michel 2011

2 Abstract Organisms that possess complex life cycles often experience carry-over effects of larval phenotypic plasticity into their juvenile and adult life stages. Predation risk during the larval stage has been shown to affect juvenile wood frog (Rana sylvatica) morphology under laboratory conditions. This study sought to determine the effects of predation on juvenile wood frogs emerging from four different vernal ponds. Hind limb length, forelimb length, head width and body width of juveniles were measured and correlated with predator density at each pond site. Predation density was not found to significantly affect juvenile morphology. However, the data suggest that physiological constraints may have prevented the evolution of extreme phenotypes in juvenile frogs in response to carry-over effects of phenotypic plasticity experienced in the larval stage. Introduction An organism s phenotype is not solely determined by its genetic code. Individuals with similar genotypes can express a wide range of morphological and behavioral traits depending on differences in environmental conditions (Schlichting 1986). While the phenomenon of phenotypic plasticity has been recognized and confirmed in a wide range of taxa, there have been relatively few studies examining how the plasticity that manifests early in an organism s development affects morphology and behavior later on in life, otherwise referred to as carry-over effects of plasticity (Van Allen et al. 2010). A number of species express and benefit from the delayed effects of phenotypic plasticity. For example, Daphnia pulex develop different morphologies based on the presence or absence of predators at an early life stage, thereby increasing their chances for survival later on and improving their fitness (Spitze 1992). In this case, carry-over

3 effects are beneficial because the environment encountered by the individual in earlier developmental stages is indicative of the environment experienced by the individual later in life. Due to the similarity of habitat utilization, individuals are able to benefit from the early effects of phenotypic plasticity throughout the entirety of their life cycle. The same is not necessarily true for all species that exhibit phenotypic plasticity. The incidence of plasticity in organisms with complex life cycles, in which larval and adult morphology and habitat utilization are drastically different, has been confirmed in marine invertebrates, fishes, insects, and amphibians (Pechenik et al. 1999). For these individuals, carry-over effects of plasticity do not necessarily have a positive effect on adult fitness. Organisms that go through complex life cycles spend their larval and adult stages in environments that are dissimilar enough to pose unique challenges to the individual s survival. For these organisms, the larval environment may indirectly affect adult morphology by influencing larval traits, which are developmentally tied to adult traits (Relyea 2001). In such a case, traits that are developmentally beneficial to the larvae can have a negative effect on adult fitness (Relyea 2001). Many studies have examined the effect of carry-over phenotypic plasticity on amphibian development and survival. Most amphibians exhibit complex life cycles and tadpoles are well known for exhibiting phenotypic plasticity in response to a range of environmental pressures (Van Buskirk and Relyea 1998). The environmental factors that influence larval traits and, by extension, post-metamorphic traits have also been explored. A study by Van Allen et al. (2010) has shown that an increase in food availability increases juvenile mass and growth efficiency in Pseudacris crucifer, while low larval density positively affects juvenile body mass in Agalychnis callidryas.

4 Plasticity in amphibians is not solely affected by food availability and competition. Predation risk also influences metamorphic morphology in Rana sylvatica. Relyea (2001) showed that juvenile wood frogs exposed to predation risk as larvae developed larger hind limbs and forelimbs and narrower bodies than juveniles emerging from a predator free environment. In addition, these changes were not attributed to predator-induced changes in larval morphology, but to predator-induced changes in larval development time. In wood frogs, a decrease in juvenile body size is correlated with a longer time to reach reproductive maturity and an overall decrease in fecundity (Berven 1990). Studies such as these have started to shed light on the adaptability of phenotypically plastic traits and their role in natural selection. More studies on the morphological traits of adult organisms with complex life cycles should take into account the phenotypically plastic traits that influence the larval stage. While these effects have been shown to occur under laboratory conditions, few studies explore the carry-over effects of phenotypic plasticity in amphibians in the field. Thus the goal of the present study was to explore the effects of larval predation pressure on the morphology of juvenile wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) in the field. The established incidence of phenotypic plasticity in wood frog tadpoles and previous work on the effects of predation on the morphological traits of wood frogs in the laboratory makes this study subject an ideal one to work with (Relyea 2001, Relyea 2002, Berven 1990). Based on previous research, I made the following hypotheses about the effect of predator density on the morphological traits of juvenile frogs in the field: (1) juvenile hind limb and forelimb length are greater in individuals emerging from ponds with higher

5 predator densities; and (2) juvenile head and body width are negatively correlated with predator density. Materials and Methods Data Collection I obtained emerging juvenile wood frogs from four open canopy vernal ponds (designated VP-P, VP-U, VP-30A, and VP-9; see Fig.1) on the property of the University of Notre Dame s Environmental Research Center (UNDERC) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Three primary methods of trapping were used: pitfall traps, visual encounter surveys, and dipnetting. Each pitfall trap was built using three 1-liter buckets, two sections of 15-foot stretches of aluminum flashing, and wooden stakes. Two pitfall traps were placed on opposite sides of each vernal pond. To ensure that only individuals emerging from the ponds were caught, traps were angled toward the pond, with the aluminum flashing flush with the back of the buckets. During visual encounter surveys, I waded around the edges of each pond, catching any wood frog individuals that I saw. At vernal pond 9, I used a dipnet to catch wood frog juveniles that had not yet fully reabsorbed their tails. I measured the morphological characteristics of each individual juvenile wood frog using 0.1 mm calipers. The following measurements were made: hind limb length, forelimb length, head width, back width, and body length. For those individuals that still retained part of their larval stage tails, I measured body length from the base of the tail to the tip of the nose. I used minnow traps to measure predator density at each vernal pond. Five traps per pond were set out every night for five consecutive nights. The primary predators

6 found in the traps were Dytiscid and Odonate larvae. After collection, I determined predator density by adding up the total number of predators found at a particular pond and dividing it by the total number of trap nights. Statistical Analysis A mean value for each of the measured morphological characteristics was determined for each pond by taking the average of the values from the individuals from each pond. I determined whether the morphological measurements needed to be corrected for body size by log transforming the data to improve its linearity and then running regression analyses using body length as the independent variable and each of the other measurements as dependent variables. Hind limb length (p=0.015426, R 2 = 0.198513), body width (p=0.000173, R 2 =0.412296), and head width (p=0.000003, R 2 =0.565711) were all significantly related with body length. I corrected these three variables for body size by taking the average of the residuals of the regression for each pond and used this value as the mean in my statistical analysis. Forelimb length was not significantly related with body length (p=0.433680; R 2 =0.022860) and therefore was not corrected for body size. To analyze the data, I ran a correlation analysis for each of the four morphological traits, using SYSTAT 13 (2009) software. For each analysis, predator density was correlated with the mean measurements of the four variables (hind limb length, body width, head width and forelimb width). Results

7 Predator densities for the vernal ponds were determined to be as follows: VP-9 had a predator density of 0.20, VP-U had a density of 1.28, VP-30A had a density of 0.267, and VP-P had a density of 0.28. A total of eleven juvenile wood frog tadpoles with legs were caught using dipnets in VP-9. Six individuals total were caught at VP-U, five of which were caught in the pitfall traps and rest of which were caught in visual encounter surveys. At VP-30A and VP-P, five and seven juveniles respectively were caught in visual encounter surveys. For the 29 juvenile wood frogs that were caught emerging from vernal ponds, there was no significant correlation between predator density and hind limb length (p= 0.331, r= 0.669, Fig. 2), forelimb length (p=0.531, r= 0.469, Fig. 3), head width (p=0.759, r=0.241, Fig. 4), and body width (p=0.665, r=0.335, Fig. 5). Discussion The results of the present study failed to support my original hypothesis that predator density will positively affect juvenile wood frog hind limb and forelimb length, while negatively affecting juvenile body and head width. This suggests that in the field, predation during the larval stage has no effect on the morphology of post-metamorphic juveniles. This is contrary to my initial hypothesis based on previous studies conducted in the laboratory that predicted that wood frog tadpoles exposed to predation risk would result in increased juvenile leg length and decreased body width (Relyea 2001). There are a number of possible explanations for these results. Relyea and Hoverman (2003) have suggested that an extension in larval period is a prerequisite for juvenile limbs to become elongated and that predation risk influences juvenile morphology indirectly by inducing fluctuations in the time it takes for a tadpole

8 to reach metamorphosis. They showed that larval predation risk had no effect on the relative growth or morphology of juvenile eastern gray tree frogs (Hyla versicolor) despite inducing relatively deep tail fins and short bodies in tadpoles. Thus the present study s failure to find a correlation between predator density and juvenile morphology may be caused by unknown confounding variables that are affecting tadpole morphology and time of metamorphosis. Predation is not the sole influence on plastic traits in frogs. Competition and larval food supply also affect tadpole and, by extension, juvenile morphology (Relyea and Hoverman 2003; Goater 1994; Van Allen et al. 2010). These latent environmental effects are hard to identify and control for in a field study. Future field studies on phenotypic plasticity in organisms with complex life histories should therefore focus on abiotic and biotic factors besides predation that may contribute to and influence the development of plastic traits in larval wood frogs. In addition, Relyea and Hoverman (2003) found that forelimb width and body width were not significantly affected by the plastic effects of larval competition until a month after metamorphosis. This suggests that under certain conditions, there exists a time lag between the influence of larval plasticity and its emergence in the adult phenotype. All of the juvenile frogs measured in this study were in early postmetamorphic stages. It is possible that an insufficient amount of time had passed for plastic traits to develop and be discernible in the juvenile phenotype. Future studies should take care to examine effects of plasticity at all points of an organism s life cycle, encompassing the early tadpole stages and late post-metamorphic stages and all stages in between.

9 Predation risk has been shown to induce a broad range of metamorphic responses in amphibians, both interspecifically and intraspecifically (Benard 2004). While predictions of predator-induced plasticity in larval morphology are generally met, there is not a universally applicable model that can predict the effect of these morphologies on future, post-metamorphic phenotypes (Benard 2004). More comprehensive studies that explore the interactions between morphological, behavioral, and life history plasticity are required before the variation in phenotypic plasticity can be fully elucidated (Benard 2004). Finally it is important to keep in mind that the phenotypes reflected in juvenile wood frogs morphology are a product not only of carry-over effects of plasticity experienced in the larval stage, but also of the mechanism of natural selection acting on populations (Agrawal 2001). If a population of frogs possesses a gene for short legs, the environmental effects that would normally induce the development of long legs in juveniles may be muted. This is yet one more consideration to take into account when studying the effects of phenotypic plasticity on organisms with complex life cycles. An unexpected trend in the data is worth mentioning here. An observation of the relationship between forelimb and hind limb length and predator density suggests a nonlinear response. After a qualitative assessment of the data, these variables seem to asymptote with increased predator density (Fig. 2 & 3). This suggests that there may be morphological constraints on the phenotypic traits of juvenile wood frogs. If this is the case, these results would have larger implications for the adaptability of these traits in wood frog populations (Arnold 1992). Constraints on the adaptations of organisms with complex life cycles have long been of interest to researchers due to the multiple and

10 discrete life stages on which natural selection can act (Moran 1994). The present study suggests that physiological constraints exist that prevent juvenile wood frogs from evolving more extreme morphologies in response to phenotypic plasticity experienced during the larval stage. The above considerations reveal much about the complex interactions and factors that must be taken into account when studying the evolution and maintenance of phenotypic plasticity and its far-reaching effects on the morphology and fitness of organisms. Understanding the impact that early stage plastic traits have on late stage morphology is an essential prerequisite for the study of organisms with complex life cycles (Relyea 2001). Thus studies such as the present one allow us to shed light on these processes, while allowing us to figure out how best to design future studies and experiments taking into account the inextricable link between tadpole and juvenile morphology and physiology. Acknowledgments I would first like to thank my research mentor, Dr. Matthew Michel, for help with experimental design and implementation. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Cramer, Heidi Mahon, Shayna Sura, and Matthew Igleski for their guidance and assistance throughout my project, both in the lab and in the field. My project was very work intensive, and as such it would not have been possible without the enthusiastic help of my UNDERC classmates. A special thanks to Mason Murphy, Kathleen Lay, Elizabeth Karpus, and Claire Mattison for their labor, company, and humor, along with their inexplicable willingness to repeatedly wade through vernal ponds at all hours of the day.

11 Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Bernard J. Hank Family Endowment for their generous funding and support.

12 Literature Cited Agrawal, A.A. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294(5541): 321-326. Arnold, S.J. 1992. Constraints on phenotypic evolution. The American Naturalist 140: S85-S107. Benard, M.F. 2004. Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in organisms with complex life histories. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics 35(1):651-673. Goater, C.P. 1994. Growth and survival of postmetamorphic toads: interactions among larval history, density, and parasitism. Ecology 75(8):2264-2274. Moran, N.A. 1994. Adaptation and constraint in the complex life cycles of animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 573-600. Pechenik, J.A. et al. 1998. Metamorphosis is not a new beginning. Bioscience 48(11): 901-910. Relyea, R.A. 2001. The lasting effects of adaptive plasticity: predator-induced tadpoles become long-legged frogs. Ecology 82(7): 1947-1955. Relyea, R.A. 2002. Local population differences in phenotypic plasticity: predatorinduced changes in wood frog tadpoles. Ecology 72(1): 77-93. Relyea, R.A. and J.T. Hoverman. 2003. The impact of larval predators and competitors on the morphology and fitness of juvenile treefrogs. Oecologia 134: 596-604. Spitze, K. 1992. Predator-mediated plasticity of prey life history and morphology: Chaoborus americanus predation on Daphnia pulex. The American Naturalist 139(2): 229-247. Van Allen, B.G. et al. 2010. Carry-over effects of the larval environments on postmetamorphic performance in two hylid frogs. Oecologia 164:891-898.

13 Figures Figure 1. Map of vernal ponds on UNDERC property. The red circles indicate the location of the four ponds (VP-P, VP-9, VP-30A, and VP-U) where emerging juvenile frogs were collected and predator density was determined.

Mean Forelimb Length ± SE Mean Hindlimb Length ± SE 14 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0-0.02 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4-0.04-0.06-0.08 Predator Density Figure 2. The relationship between predator density and mean hind limb length ± standard error. There was no significant correlation between predator density and hind limb length in juvenile wood frogs (p= 0.331, r= 0.669). 0.3 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Predator Density Figure 3. The relationship between predator density and mean forelimb length ± standard error. There was no significant correlation between predator density and forelimb length in juvenile wood frogs (p=0.531, r= 0.469).

Mean Body Width ± SE Mean Head Width ± SE 15 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0-0.005 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4-0.01-0.015 Predator Density Figure 4. The relationship between predator density and mean head width ± standard error. There was no significant correlation between predator density and head width in juvenile wood frogs (p=0.759, r=0.241). 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0-0.01 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4-0.02-0.03-0.04-0.05 Predator Density Figure 5. The relationship between predator density and mean body width ± standard error. There was no significant correlation between predator density and body width in juvenile wood frogs (p=0.665, r=0.335).