2012Behavioral EcologyOpen access

Inducible defense behavior of an anuran tadpole: cue-detection range and cue types used against predator

Teruhiko Takahara, Yukihiro Kohmatsu, Atsushi Maruyama, Hideyuki Doi, Hiroki Yamanaka, Ryohei Yamaoka

Open full text 43 citations

Abstract

Inducible behavioral defense in response to predator cue detection is a key phenomenon in predator–prey interactions. The mechanisms by which prey use chemical/visual cues to avoid predation remain little known. We hypothesized that the distance at which prey species detect predator cues would be related to avoiding detection by the predator. To test this hypothesis, we performed laboratory experiments using an anuran tadpole (Hyla japonica) and a predatory dragonfly nymph (Anax parthenope julius). Tadpole activity level was reduced as a function of exposure to chemical cues from the dragonfly predator, but activity levels did not change when tadpoles were exposed to potential visual cues from the dragonfly. The distances over which tadpoles detected predator cues were longer than those over which the dragonfly predator detected tadpoles. The differences in cue-detection ranges between tadpoles and dragonfly predators are related both to predator avoidance by tadpoles and effective foraging strategies by dragonfly predators. Chemical cue detection as a trigger of inducible defense by prey species may shape predator–prey relationships in aquatic habitats.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Inducible behavioral defense in response to predator cue detection is a key phenomenon in predator–prey interactions. The mechanisms by which prey use chemical/visual cues to avoid predation remain little known. We hypothesized that the distance at which prey species detect predator cues would be related to avoiding detection by the predator. To test this hypothesis, we performed laboratory experiments using an anuran tadpole (Hyla japonica) and a predatory dragonfly nymph (Anax parthenope julius). Tadpole activity level was reduced as a function of exposure to chemical cues from the dragonfly predator, but activity levels did not change when tadpoles were exposed to potential visual cues from the dragonfly. The distances over which tadpoles detected predator cues were longer than those over which the dragonfly predator detected tadpoles. The differences in cue-detection ranges between tadpoles and dragonfly predators are related both to predator avoidance by tadpoles and effective foraging strategies by dragonfly predators. Chemical cue detection as a trigger of inducible defense by prey species may shape predator–prey relationships in aquatic habitats.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 43 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Inducible behavioral defense in response to predator cue detection is a key phenomenon in predator–prey interactions. The mechanisms by which prey use chemical/visual cues to avoid predation remain little known. We hypothesized that the distance at which prey species detect predator cues would be related to avoiding detection by the predator. To test this hypothesis, we performed laboratory experiments using an anuran tadpole (Hyla japonica) and a predatory dragonfly nymph (Anax parthenope julius). Tadpole activity level was reduced as a function of exposure to chemical cues from the dragonfly predator, but activity levels did not change when tadpoles were exposed to potential visual cues from the dragonfly. The distances over which tadpoles detected predator cues were longer than those over which the dragonfly predator detected tadpoles. The differences in cue-detection ranges between tadpoles and dragonfly predators are related both to predator avoidance by tadpoles and effective foraging strategies by dragonfly predators. Chemical cue detection as a trigger of inducible defense by prey species may shape predator–prey relationships in aquatic habitats.

Key concepts: Dragonfly, Predator, Tadpole (physics), Predation, Biology, Ecology, Foraging, Odonata

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Inducible defense behavior of an anuran tadpole: cue-detection range and cue types used against predator — Research Paper | ScholarLens