IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v13y2002i4p526-530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A test of the risk allocation hypothesis: tadpole responses to temporal change in predation risk

Author

Listed:
  • Josh Van Buskirk
  • Corsin Müller
  • Andreas Portmann
  • Martin Surbeck

Abstract

The risk allocation hypothesis predicts that temporal variation in predation risk can influence how animals allocate feeding behavior among situations that differ in danger. We tested the risk allocation model with tadpoles of the frog Rana lessonae, which satisfy the main assumptions of this model because they must feed to reach metamorphosis within a single season, their behavioral defense against predators is costly, and they can respond to changes in risk integrated over time. Our experiment switched tadpoles between artificial ponds with different numbers of caged dragonfly larvae and held them at high and low risk for different portions of their lives. Tadpoles responded strongly to predators, but they did not obey the risk allocation hypothesis: as the high-risk environment became more dangerous, there was no tendency for tadpoles to allocate more feeding to the low-risk environment, and as tadpoles spent more time at risk, they did not increase feeding in both environments. Our results suggest that the model might be more applicable when the time spent under high predation risk is large relative to the time required to collect resources. Copyright 2002.

Suggested Citation

  • Josh Van Buskirk & Corsin Müller & Andreas Portmann & Martin Surbeck, 2002. "A test of the risk allocation hypothesis: tadpole responses to temporal change in predation risk," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(4), pages 526-530, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:4:p:526-530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:4:p:526-530. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.