1998
DOI: 10.2307/3546913
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Predators on Prey Growth Rate: Relative Contributions of Thinning and Reduced Activity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
116
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 149 publications
(129 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
12
116
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, density effects alone are unlikely to explain our results. In contrast, predator presence may reduce feeding activity and thereby slow growth rates of tadpoles (Van Buskirk and Yurewicz, 1998). This explanation would be likely if tadpoles had greater energy requirements at higher temperatures so that the effect of reduced feeding would be more pronounced compared with that in cooler environments.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Hence, density effects alone are unlikely to explain our results. In contrast, predator presence may reduce feeding activity and thereby slow growth rates of tadpoles (Van Buskirk and Yurewicz, 1998). This explanation would be likely if tadpoles had greater energy requirements at higher temperatures so that the effect of reduced feeding would be more pronounced compared with that in cooler environments.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Second, larvae that survive predation in natural ponds may experience release from competition and therefore grow and develop more rapidly (Slobodkin 1962, Wilbur 1988). This possibility also seems unlikely since the benefits from thinning will rarely compensate for the decreased probability of survival (Van Buskirk and Yurewicz 1998). We conclude that the predator-induced phenotype performs better than the no-predator phenotype in the presence of dragonflies, and that this difference would probably be enforced under natural conditions as well.…”
Section: Adaptive Plasticity: Environmental Heterogeneity and Individmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Refuge environments are often nutrient poor (Holomuzki, 1986;Kohler and McPeek, 1989;Persson et al, 2000), and prey cease to forage for and consume food during evasion or avoidance (for a review, see Brown and Kotler, 2004). A reduction in energy consumption can negatively impact growth (Sih, 1987;Van Buskirk and Yurewicz, 1998;Nakaoka, 2000), health [e.g. resistance to parasites (Baker and Smith, 1997) and bacterial pathogens (Rigby and Jokela, 2000)] and reproductive success (Peckarsky et al, 1993;Loose and Dawidowicz, 1994;Peckarsky, 1996).…”
Section: Ecological Consequences Of Mixture Suppression and Context-mentioning
confidence: 99%