Abstract

During early development, many aposematic species have bright and conspicuous warning appearance, but have yet to acquire chemical defenses, a phenotypic state which presumably makes them vulnerable to predation. Body size and signal luminance in particular are known to be sensitive to variation in early nutrition. However, the relative importance of these traits as determinants of predation risk in juveniles is not known. To address this question, we utilized computer-assisted design (CAD) and information on putative predator visual sensitivities to produce artificial models of postmetamorphic froglets that varied in terms of body size and signal luminance. We then deployed the artificial models in the field and measured rates of attack by birds and unknown predators. Our results indicate that body size was a significant predictor of artificial prey survival. Rates of attack by bird predators were significantly higher on smaller models. However, predation by birds did not differ between artificial models of varying signal luminance. This suggests that at the completion of metamorphosis, smaller froglets may be at a selective disadvantage, potentially because predators can discern they have relatively low levels of chemical defense compared to larger froglets. There is likely to be a premium on efficient foraging, giving rise to rapid growth and the acquisition of toxins from dietary sources in juvenile poison frogs.

Highlights

  • Conditions during early stages of development are known to shape the later phenotype (Rossiter 1996; Monaghan 2008)

  • Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

  • Experiment 1: effect of body size on predation risk A total of 44 of 597 artificial prey were attacked by birds (7%) (Figs. 1 and 2), whereas 34 prey were attacked by unknown predators (6%), while three models could not be re-found and were classed as censored

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Conditions during early stages of development are known to shape the later phenotype (Rossiter 1996; Monaghan 2008). For example, these conditions may influence skin color (Ogilvy et al 2012) and affect physiological condition (Jones et al 2010; Crespi and Warne 2013), growth rate (LaFiandra and Babbitt 2004), and morphology (Touchon and Warkentin 2008). Aposematic species are distasteful or otherwise unprofitable and signal this property to predators with conspicuous coloration (Poulton 1890). Poison frogs are a group of aposematic a 2015 The Authors.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.