4.6 Article

Space use and phenotypic plasticity in tadpoles under predation risk

期刊

HYDROBIOLOGIA
卷 837, 期 1, 页码 77-86

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-019-3962-3

关键词

Foraging; Habitat avoidance; Ideal free distribution; Morphological plasticity; Patch choice

资金

  1. Use Animal Ethics Committee from Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul [732/2015]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil [001]
  3. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico) [311492/2017-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food acquisition by most organisms is a complex ecological process that involves benefits and risks, affecting organism development and interspecific interactions. The evaluation of habitat selection, food consumption, and predator avoidance is pivotal for understanding the ecological process affecting life history traits and the role of species on communities and ecosystems. In a microcosm experiment, we evaluated if Rhinella diptycha tadpoles actively choose to forage in habitats with high resource (food) availability and if they avoid such habitats when predators are positively correlated with resource distribution. We also evaluated if behavioral changes under predation risk were associated with specific morphological phenotypes. We observed that tadpoles chose, although not intensely, habitats with high resource availability when predator cues were absent, but they avoided the same habitats when predation cues were present. We also observed an increase in swimming activity and morphological changes in tadpoles exposed to predation risk, especially related to body and tail morphology, which translates into rapid development. Our results suggest that tadpoles assess habitat quality through resource availability and predation risk. Moreover, our results suggest that tadpoles seem to exhibit functionally independent co-specialization of defensive strategies, due to the expression of specific behavioral and morphological phenotypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据