2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-018-2503-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Resource-dependent temporal changes in antipredator behavior of common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This does not necessarily mean, however, that social information use was not present in the tutored collectives. Reduced activity can be a social cue for indicating predation threat in tadpoles [ 39 , 40 , 62 ], so it is possible that the behaviour of tutors did not provide adaptive information to conspecific observers in a foraging context, but their low activity level induced similar behavioural adjustments in others leading to the observed differences between the studied collective types. Alternatively, reduced activity of satiated conspecifics failed to decrease the time required for naive tadpoles to discover and feed from the presented food patch because the relative difference in activity did not make tutors conspicuous enough to others and thus were not recognized as social cue producers [ 27 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This does not necessarily mean, however, that social information use was not present in the tutored collectives. Reduced activity can be a social cue for indicating predation threat in tadpoles [ 39 , 40 , 62 ], so it is possible that the behaviour of tutors did not provide adaptive information to conspecific observers in a foraging context, but their low activity level induced similar behavioural adjustments in others leading to the observed differences between the studied collective types. Alternatively, reduced activity of satiated conspecifics failed to decrease the time required for naive tadpoles to discover and feed from the presented food patch because the relative difference in activity did not make tutors conspicuous enough to others and thus were not recognized as social cue producers [ 27 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This definition of moving was also applied to compare differences in activity between differently treated tadpoles in previous studies (e.g. [ 39 , 40 ]). Measuring the time when tadpoles were visible was necessary as in some recordings animals that swam close to the wall of the container got out of sight temporarily (time visible (mean ± s.d.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, satiated individuals take less risk than food-deprived individuals, with many examples from birds (Heller and Milinski 1979;Tvardíková and Fuchs 2011;Bonter et al 2013), fish (Godin and Crossman 1994;Sogard and Olla 1996;Poulsen et al 2010) and insects (Nonacs and Dill 1990). Food level also affects the antipredator behavior of amphibian larvae (Horat and Semlitsch 1994;Anholt et al 1996;Anholt et al 2000;Whitham and Mathis 2000;Altwegg 2003;Carlson et al 2015;Kurali et al 2018). Although food availability and its effect on behavioral antipredator responses is well documented, there is a lack of studies investigating how other environmental factors may further interact with feeding history to shape threat-sensitive responses of animals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This response can occur within minutes [63]. Longer term exposure to such cues can cause an increase in refuge use [64,65], alter larval morphology [62], prompt the development of colour spots on the tail [66,67], and slow growth and development [68,69]. These effects are seen across venues from the laboratory to the field [70,71].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%