Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:09:26.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in reproductive characteristics of the stream frog Colostethus trinitatis on the island of Trinidad

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Clive P. Cummins  and
Mary J. S. Swan
Clive P. Cummins
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon PE17 2LS, UK
Mary J. S. Swan
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology and Biotechnology, De Montfort University, Scraptoft Campus, Leicester LEI 9SU, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compared reproductive characteristics of the dendrobatid frog Colostethus trinitatis at the Tamana cave in the Central Range hills and at five forest stream sites in the Northern Range hills of Trinidad. There were significant differences between sites in adult female body size, intraovarian clutch size (in absolute terms and relative to body size) and the size of tadpoles carried by male frogs. Clutch sizes ranged from 6 to 13 in the Northern Range samples and from 12 to 26 at Tamana. Adult male body size was similar at all sites. Tadpoles carried by male C. trinitatis at Tamana were significantly smaller (mean length 14.2 mm) than those carried by males at the five Northern range sites (mean length 16.4–16.7 mm). The smallest clutches and largest tadpoles were found at Mount St Benedict, where there was evidence of size-selective predation on tadpoles by fish. Tamana, where clutches were large and tadpoles small, differed from the Northern Range sites in terms of the physical environment (cave vs forest) and the abundance of invertebrates. We discuss possible ultimate and proximate causes of the differences in clutch size and tadpole size, particularly size-selective predation and availability of food.

Keywords

caveclutchColostethus trinitatisdendrobatideggfrogpredationreproductionRivulus hartistreamtadpoleTrinidad
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , November 1995 , pp. 603 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Crump, M. L. 1974. Reproductive strategies in a tropical anuran community. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 61:1–68.Google Scholar
Cummins, C. P. 1986. Temporal and spatial variation in egg size and fecundity in Rana temporaria. Journal of Animal Ecology 55:303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duellman, W. E. & Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York. 670 pp.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. R. 1974. A phenetic analysis of the genus Colostethus (Anura: Dendrobatidae). PhD thesis, University of Kansas, USA. 419 pp.Google Scholar
Kenny, J. S. 1969. The Amphibia of Trinidad. Pp. 1–78 in Hummelinck, P. W. (ed.). Studies on the fauna of Curacao and other Caribbean islands. Martinus NijhofF, The Hague.Google Scholar
Mcdiarmid, R. W. 1978. Evolution of parental care in frogs. Pp. 127–147 in Burghardt, G. M. & Beckoff, M. (eds). The development of behavior: comparative and evolutionary aspects. Garland Publishing Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Myers, C. W. & Daly, J. W. 1993. Tropical poison frogs. Science 262:1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Praderio, M. J. & Robinson, M. D. 1990. Reproduction in the toad Colostethus trinitatus (Anura: Dendrobatidae) in a northern Venezuela seasonal environment. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6:333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznick, D. N. 1982a. Genetic determination of offspring size in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). American Naturalist 120:181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznick, D. N. 1982b. The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies: genetic basis of observed life history patterns. Evolution 36:1236–1250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reznick, D. N. & Bryga, H. 1987. Life-history evolution in guppies (Poecilia reticulata): 1. phenotypic and genetic changes in an introduction experiment. Evolution 41:1370–1385.Google Scholar
Reznick, D. N., Bryga, H. & Endler, J. A. 1990. Experimentally induced life-history evolution in a natural population. Nature 346:357–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznick, D. N. & Endler, J. A. 1982. The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 36:160–177.Google ScholarPubMed
Scheiner, S. M. 1993. Plasticity as a selectable trait: reply to Via. American Naturalist 142:371–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichting, C. D. & Pigliucci, M. 1993. Control of phenotypic plasticity via regulatory genes. American Naturalist 142:366–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sexton, O. J. 1960. Some aspects of the behavior and of the territory of a dendrobatid frog, Prostherapis trinitatis. Ecology 41:107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinervo, B. & Licht, P. 1991. Proximate constraints oh the evolution of egg size, number and total clutch mass in lizards. Science 252:1300–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. & Sage, R. D. 1980. Maladaptation in a marginal population of mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Evolution 34:65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, K. 1990. Parental care and the cost of polygyny in the green dart-poison frog Dendrobates auratus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27:307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, K. 1992. Mating strategies in two species of dart-poison frogs: a comparative study. Animal Behaviour 43:907–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Test, F. H. 1954. Social aggressiveness in an amphibian. Science 120:140–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Via, S. 1993. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: target or by-product of selection in a variable environment? American Naturalist 142:352–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, K. D. 1977. The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour 25:666–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, K. D. 1980a. Social behavior and communication of a dendrobatid frog (Colostethus trinitatis). Herpetologica 36:189–199.Google Scholar
Wells, K. D. 1980b. Evidence for growth of tadpoles during parental transport in Colostethus inguinalis. Journal of Herpetology 14:428–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, K. D. 1980c. Behavioral ecology and social organization of a dendrobatic frog (Colostethus inguinalis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 6:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, K. D. 1981. Parental behavior of male and female frogs. Pp. 184–197 in Alexander, R. D. & Tinkle, D. W. (eds). Natural selection and social behavior: recent research and new theory. Chiron Press, Newton, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Weygoldt, P. 1980. Complex brood care and reproductive behavior in captive poison arrow frogs, Dendrobates pumilio O. Schmidt. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7:329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weygoldt, P. 1987. Evolution of parental care in dart poison frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Dendrobatidae). Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionforschung 25:51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, H. & Zimmermann, E. 1988. Etho-Taxonomie und zoogeographische Artengruppenbildung bei Pfeilgiftfröschen (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Salamandra 24:125–160.Google Scholar