[1].[J].Asian Herpetological Research,2015,6(1):51-58.[doi:10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.140023]
 Fang ZHANG,Juan ZHAO,Yujie ZHANG,et al.Antipredator Behavioral Responses of Native and Exotic Tadpoles to Novel Predator[J].Asian Herpetological Research(AHR),2015,6(1):51-58.[doi:10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.140023]


Asian Herpetological Research[ISSN:2095-0357/CN:51-1735/Q]

Original Article


Antipredator Behavioral Responses of Native and Exotic Tadpoles to Novel Predator
Fang ZHANG1 Juan ZHAO1 Yujie ZHANG1 Kevin MESSENGER2 and Yong WANG2*
1 College of Life Sciences, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, 241000, China
2 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Normal, Alabama, 35762, USA
tadpoles Bullfrog antipredator responses chemical cues novel predator
Factors related to the invasion process, such as high abundance of invaders, residence time, and functional distinctiveness, are well documented, but less attention has been given to the effects of antipredator strategy of invasive species during colonization. In this study, we explored the antipredator strategy of an introduced species by comparing the predator avoidance behaviors of two native anuran species and one introduced (“exotic”) species in the presence of different predators. The two native anuran species used in the study were Black-spotted Pond Frog Rana nigromaculata and Terrestrial Frog Rana limnocharis. The introduced (invasive) species used was American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus. Chinese pond turtle Chinemys reevesii, Red-backed rat snake Elaphe rufodorsata, and Big-headed turtle Platysternon megacephalum were used as predator species. Chinese pond turtles and Red-backed rat snakes are native predators of Black-spotted Pond Frogs and Terrestrial Frogs, while Big-headed turtles are novel (“unfamiliar”) to the two frogs. All three predator species are novel (“unfamiliar”) to the American bullfrog. The results show that tadpoles of the two native species displayed behaviors of recognizing the two native predators, but did not display the capability of identifying the novel predator. Results from our study also suggest that American bullfrog tadpoles exhibited strong antipredator behavioral responses by displaying the capability of identifying “unfamiliar” predators without cohabitation history and prior exposure to them. Such antipredator behavioral responses could have resulted in more favorable outcomes for an invading species during the invasive introductory process.


Alford R. A., Richards S. J. 1999. Global amphibian declines: A problem in applied ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst, 30: 133–165
Blaustein A. R., Kiesecker J. M. 2002. Complexity in conservation: Lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecol Lett, 5: 597–608
Chen B. H. 1991. Anhui Amphibia and Reptilia. Hefei: Anhui Press of Sciences and Technology (In Chinese)
Chivers D. P., Smith R. J. F. 1994. The role of experience and chemical alarm signaling in predator recognition by fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. J Fish Biol, 44: 273–285
Chivers D. P., Smith R. J. F. 1995. Free-living minnows rapidly learn to recognize pike as predators. J Fish Biol, 46: 949–954
Colautti R. I., Ricciardi A., Grigorovich I. A., Maclsaac H. J. 2004. Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol Lett, 7: 721–733
Ficetola G. F., Thuiller W., Miaud G. 2007. Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species- the American bullfrog. Divers Distrib, 13: 476–485
Formanowicz D. R., Brodie Jr. E. D. 1982. Relative palatabilities of members of larval amphibian community. Copiea, 1982: 91–97
Gonzalo A., López P., Martín J. 2007. Iberian green frog tadpoles may learn to recognize novel predators from chemical alarm cues of conspecifics. Anim Behav, 74: 447–453
Gosner K. L.1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica, 16: 183–190
Hazlett B. A. 2000. Information use by an invading species: Do invaders respond more to alarm odors than native species? Biol Invasions, 2: 289–294
Hazlett B. A. 2003. Predator recognition and learned irrelevance in the crayfish Orconectes virilis. Ethology, 109: 765–780
ISSG Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2002. Global Invasive Species Database: Rana catesbeiana. Retrieved from www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp? si=80&fr=1&sts=tss
ISSG Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/.
Kats L. B., Petranka J. W., Sih A. 1988. Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology, 69: 1865–1870
Kats L. B., Dill L. M. 1998. The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience, 5: 361–394
Kats L. B., Ferrer R. P. 2003. Alien predators and amphibian declines: Review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers Distrib, 9: 99–110
Kiesecker J. M., Chivers D. P., Blaustein A. R. 1996. The use of chemical cues in predator recognition by western toad tadpoles. Anim Behav, 52: 1237–1245
Kiesecker J. M., Blaustein A. R. 1997. Population differences in responses of Red-Legged Frogs (Rana aurora) to introduced bullfrogs. Ecology, 78: 1752–1760
Kiesecker J. M., Blaustein A. R. 1998. Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, Growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conserv Biol, 12: 776–787
Larson J. K., McCormick M. I. 2005. The role of chemical alarm signals in facilitating learned recognition of novel chemical cues in a coral reef fish. Anim Behav, 69: 51–57
Laurila A., Kujasalo J., Ranta E. 1997. Different anti-predator behavior in two anuran tadpoles: Effects of predator diet. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 40: 329–336
Lever C. 2003. Naturalized amphibians and reptiles of the world. New York: Oxford University Press
Li Y. M., Wu Z. J., Duncan R. P. 2006. Why islands are easier to invade: human influences on bullfrog invasion in the Zhoushan archipelago and neighboring mainland China. Oecologia, 148: 129–136
Liu X., Li Y. M., Mcgarrity M. 2010. Geographical variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism of introduced American bullfrogs in southwestern China. Biol Invasions, 12, 2037–2047
Lodge D. M. 1993. Biological invasion: Lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol Evol, 8:133–137
L?vei G. L. 1997. Global change through invasion. Nature, 388: 627–628
Mandrillon A. L., Saglio P. 2005. Prior exposure to conspecific chemical cues affects predatoro recognition in larval Common Toad (Bufo bufo). Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 164:1–12
Marquis O., Saglio P., Neveu A. 2004. Effects of predators and conspecific chemical cues on the swimming activity of Rana temporaria and Bufo bufo tadpoles. Arch Hydrobiol, 160: 153–170
Mathis A., Smith R. J. F. 1993. Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize northern pike, Esox lucius, as predators on the basis of chemical stimuli from minnows in the pike’s diet. Anim Behav, 46: 645–656
Parker I. M., Simberloff D., Lonsdale W. M., Goodell K., Wonham M., Kareiva P. M., Williamson M. H., Von Holle B., Moyle P. B., Byers J. E. 1999. Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Inv, 1: 3–19
Pearl C. A., Adams M. J. Schuytema G. S., Nebeker A. 2003. Behavioral responses of anuran larvae to chemical cues of native and introduced predators in the Pacific Northwestern United States. J Herpetol, 37: 572–576
Pearl C. A., Adams M. J., Bury R. B., McCreary B. 2004. Asymmetrical effects of introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) on native Ranid frogs in Oregon. Copeia, 2004:11–20
Polo-Cavia N., Gonzalo A., López P., Martin, J. 2010. Predator recognition of native but not invasive turtle predators by na?ve anuran tadpoles. Anim Behav, 80: 461–466
Relyea R. A. 2001. The relationship between predation risk and antipredator responses in larval anurans. Ecology, 82: 541–554
Rohr J. R., Madison D. M. 2001. A chemically mediated trade-off between predation risk and mate search in newts. Anim Behav, 62: 863–869
Sax D. F., Stachowicz J. J., Gaines S. D. 2005. Species invasions: insights into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates
Sih A. 1980. Optimal behavior: Can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science, 210: 1041–1043
Sih A. 1987. Predators and prey lifestyles: An evolutionary and ecological overview. In Kerfoot W. C., Sih A. (Eds.), Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. Hanover: University Press of New England, 203–224
Sih A., Bolnick D. I., Barney B. 2010. Predator-prey na?veté, antipredator behavior, and the ecology of predator invasions. Oikos, 119: 610–621
Strayer D. L., Eviner V. T., Jeschke J. M., Pace M. L. 2006. Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol, 21: 645–651
Wilson D. J., Lefcort H. 1993. The effect of predator diet on the alarm response of red-legged frog, Rana aurora, tadpoles, Anim Behav, 46: 1017–1019
Wirsing A. J., James D. R., Dennis L. M. 2005. Can prey use dietary cues to distinguish predators? A test involving three terrestrial amphibians. Herpetologica, 61: 104–110
Wu Z. J., Li Y. M. 2004. Causes and conservation strategies of amphibian population declines. Chin J Ecol, 23: 140–146 (In Chinese)
Wu Z. J., Cai F. J., Jia Y. F., Lu J. X., Jiang Y. F., Huang C. M. 2008. Predation impact of Procamerus clarkia on limnocharis tadpoles in Guilin area. Biodivers Sci, 16: 150–155 (In Chinese)

更新日期/Last Update: 2016-01-25