Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:42:38.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Escape behaviour of aposematic (Oophaga pumilio) and cryptic (Craugastor sp.) frogs in response to simulated predator approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Annelise Blanchette ,
Noémi Becza  and
Ralph A. Saporito
Annelise Blanchette
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH, USA
Noémi Becza
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH, USA
Ralph A. Saporito*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Crypsis and aposematism are common antipredator strategies that can each be coupled with behaviours that maximize predator deterrence or avoidance. Cryptic animals employ camouflage to conceal themselves within their environment and generally rely on immobility to avoid detection by predators. Alternatively, aposematic animals tend to rely on an association between conspicuous colouration and secondary defence to deter potential predators, and tend to exhibit slow movements in response to predators. The goal of the present study was to determine how cryptic Craugastor sp. and aposematic Oophaga pumilio respond to simulated human and bird model predators. Oophaga pumilio responded more often with movement to both the human (17/22) and bird (9/25) predators than Craugastor sp. (human: 2/21; bird: 0/21). The increased movement resulted in a greater average flight initiation distance, latency to move, and distance fled in O. pumilio. These findings suggest that cryptic Craugastor sp. rely on immobility to avoid detection, whereas aposematic O. pumilio utilize movement, possibly as a mechanism to increase the visibility of their warning signals to potential predators. Furthermore, O. pumilio exhibited greater movement in response to humans, suggesting that they actively avoid trampling by large threats, rather than considering them predators.

Keywords

anti-predator behaviouraposematismcrypsisdendrobatidflight initiation distance
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 165 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ALVARADO, J. B., ALVAREZ, A. & SAPORITO, R. A. 2013. Oophaga pumilio (Strawberry Poison Frog). Predation by Baryphthengus martii (Rufous Motmot). Herpetological Review 44:298.Google Scholar
BLANCHETTE, A. & SAPORITO, R. A. 2016. Defensive behaviour exhibited by the green and black poison frog (Dendrobates auratus) in response to simulated predation. Herpetological Bulletin 136:39.Google Scholar
BULBERT, M. W., PAGE, R. A. & BERNAL, X. E. 2015. Danger comes from all fronts: predator-dependent escape tactics of Túngara frogs. PLoS ONE (10) 4:e0120546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOPER, W. E. & BLUMSTEIN, D. T. 2016. Escaping from predators: an integrative view of escape decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 460 pp.Google Scholar
COOPER, W. E., CALDWELL, J. P. & VITT, L. J. 2008. Effective crypsis and its maintenance by immobility in Craugastor frogs. Copeia 3:527–532.Google Scholar
COOPER, W. E., CALDWELL, J. P. & VITT, L. J. 2009a. Conspicuousness and vestigial escape behaviour by two dendrobatid frogs, Dendrobates auratus and Oophaga pumilio. Behaviour 146:325–349.Google Scholar
COOPER, W. E., CALDWELL, J. P. & VITT, L. J. 2009b. Risk assessment and withdrawal behaviour by two species of aposematic poison frogs, Dendrobates auratus and Oophaga pumilio, on forest trails. Ethology 115:311–320.Google Scholar
DAVID, M., SALIGNON, M. & PERROT-MINNOT, M. 2014. Shaping the antipredator strategy: flexibility, consistency, and behavioural correlation under varying predation threat. Behavioural Ecology 25:1148–1156.Google Scholar
DUGAS, M. B., HALBROOK, S. R., KILLIUS, A. M., SOL, J. F. & RICHARDS-ZAWACKI, C. L. 2015. Colour and escape behaviour in polymorphic populations of an aposematic poison frog. Ethology 121:813–822.Google Scholar
LIPPOLIS, G., BISAZZA, A., ROGERS, L. J. & VALLORTIGARA, G. 2002. Lateralisation of predator avoidance responses in three species of toads. Laterality 7:163–183.Google Scholar
MEUCHE, I., LINSENMAIR, K. E. & PRÖHL, H. 2011. Female territoriality in the strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio). Copeia 2011:351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MIYATAKE, T., TABUCHI, K., SASAKI, K., OKADA, K., KATAYAMA, K. & MORIYA, S. 2007. Pleiotropic antipredator strategies, fleeing and feigning death, correlated with dopamine levels in Tribolium castaneum . Animal Behaviour 75:113–121.Google Scholar
OZEL, L. D. & STYNOSKI, J. L. 2011. Differences in escape behaviour between a cryptic and an aposematic litter frog. Journal of Herpetology 45:395–398.Google Scholar
PALUH, D. J., HANTAK, M. M. & SAPORITO, R. A. 2014. A test of aposematism in the dendrobatid poison frog Oophaga pumilio: the importance of movement in clay model experiments. Journal of Herpetology 48:249–254.Google Scholar
PALUH, D. J., KENISON, E. K. & SAPORITO, R. A. 2015. Frog or fruit? The importance of colour and shape to bird predators in clay model experiments. Copeia 103:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRÖHL, H. & OSTROWSKI, T. 2011. Behavioural elements reflect phenotypic colour divergence in a poison frog. Evolutionary Ecology 25:993–1015.Google Scholar
ROYAN, A., MUIR, A. P. & DOWNIE, J. R. 2010. Variability in escape trajectory in the Trinidadian stream frog and two treefrogs at different life-history stages. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:922–934.Google Scholar
RUXTON, G. D., SHERRATT, T. N. & SPEED, M. P. 2004. Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis. Warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 260 pp.Google Scholar
SAPORITO, R. A., ZUERCHER, R., ROBERTS, M., GERROW, K. G. & DONNELLY, M. A. 2007. Experimental evidence for aposematism in the poison frog Oophagapumilio . Copeia 4:1006–1011.Google Scholar
SAPORITO, R. A., DONNELLY, M. A., SPANDE, T. F. & GARRAFFO, H. M. 2012. A review of chemical ecology in poison frogs. Chemoecology 22:159–168.Google Scholar
SAVAGE, J. M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 954 pp.Google Scholar
TOLEDO, L. F., SAZIMA, I. & HADDAD, C. F. B. 2011. Behavioural defences of anurans: an overview. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 23:1–25.Google Scholar
WILLINK, B., BRENES-MORA, E., BOLANOS, F. & PRÖHL, H. 2013. Not everything is black and white: colour and behavioural variation reveal a continuum between cryptic and aposematic strategies in a polymorphic poison frog. Evolution 67:2783–2794.Google Scholar