Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Aquat Ecol DOI 10.1007/s10452-010-9323-y Ostracoda and Amphibia in temporary ponds: who is the prey? Unexpected trophic relation in a mediterranean freshwater habitat Dario Ottonello • Antonio Romano Received: 8 November 2009 / Accepted: 5 May 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract Small and temporary freshwater ecosystems are important biodiversity ‘‘hot spots’’ of the Mediterranean region, and their food webs are considered as very complex systems. Amphibians and ostracods are two highly ubiquitous classes of metazoans adapted to live in temporary ponds. Their trophic interactions are considered unidirectional, the amphibians acting as predators and the ostracods as preys. In the field, we observed the opposite interaction in few ponds in Northern Italy. To confirm this qualitative evidence, we set up laboratory experiments to investigate the predation by the Ostracod mussel shrimp (Heterocypris incongruens) on eggs and tadpoles of Common toad (Bufo bufo) and Stripless tree frog (Hyla meridionalis). Amphibian eggs of both species were offered to ostracods either as unique trophic resource or, alternatively, together with another kind of food. Similarly, tadpoles of both species were simultaneously offered to ostracods (with alternative food) to disclose their preferences. Ostracods preyed mainly on amphibian eggs and no Handling Editor: Piet Spaak. D. Ottonello Via San Domenico 200, 17027 Pietra Ligure (SV), Italy A. Romano (&) Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Roma ‘‘Tor Vergata’’, Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] significant differences in the rate of predation between toad and treefrog eggs were detected. However, ostracods preferred Bufo when offered along with Hyla tadpoles. Toad eggs and larvae are commonly considered highly unpalatable, but our results contrasted this view. The difference in the predation rate between the two tadpole species is discussed in the light of their swimming behaviour. We show that feeding relationships between Amphibia and Ostracoda are much more complex than expected and depend on both the ecological context and amphibian life stage. The knowledge of the trophic connections among taxa is a fundamental prerequisite to further and more exhaustive studies on community ecology. Keywords Amphibia Ostracoda Egg predation Food web Temporary ponds Introduction Aquatic habitats may differ in productivity, resource abundance and community composition (e.g. Polis et al. 1997). Food webs are particularly complex in large and permanent aquatic ecosystems (e.g. Belgrano et al. 2005), although their complexity in small and temporary ponds has been often underestimated (e.g. Wilbur 1997; Urban 2007). In the Mediterranean region, ephemeral aquatic habitats represent the very large majority of freshwater ecosystems (Blondel and Aronson 1999) and the temporary ponds (sensu De 123 Aquat Ecol Meester et al. 2005) may be collectively considered as biodiversity ‘‘hot spots’’ (e.g. Céréghino et al. 2008 and references therein; Williams et al. 2004). In fact, they harbour taxa of high conservation interest (Della Bella et al. 2005; Griffiths 1997). Ostracoda and Amphibia are two highly ubiquitous classes of metazoans colonising an extremely wide variety of freshwater environments (Balian et al. 2008; Martens et al. 2008), included the temporary ponds (Eitam et al. 2004; Griffiths 1997; Rossetti et al. 2006). Ostracods, or mussel shrimps, display a variety of feeding strategies as they can act as filter-feeders, detrivores, herbivores and carnivores. Among freshwater ostracods, scavenging is the main form of carnivory, while parasitism is the least common carnivorous habit. Several feeding habits may be adopted by the same taxon as complementary and opportunistic feeding strategies (Bennett et al. 1997; Vannier et al. 1998; Wilkinson et al. 2007 and references therein). Amphibians are predators at the adult stage, whereas their larvae may be carnivorous (salamanders, newts and caecilians, see Kupfer et al. 2005 and references therein; but also some anuran species: McDiarmid and Altig 1999), herbivorous, detritivorous or omnivorous (in frogs, toads and treefrogs: McDiarmid and Altig 1999). In many ecosystems, amphibians are the major predator of invertebrates and algae consumers (Blaustein and Wake 1990; Wake 1991), representing, in turn, a rich trophic resource for mammals, birds, fishes, snakes (Blaustein and Wake 1990; Hayes and Jennings 1990) and, at least during their egg or larval stages, for several invertebrates (Gunzburger and Travis 2005; Romano and Di Cerbo 2007). In the field, we qualitatively observed an unexpected trophic relation between ostracods and amphibians (eggs and larvae) where the first were the predator and the second were the prey. These observations suggested that mussel shrimps might prey on amphibian eggs and tadpoles. To test this hypothesis, we performed a set of laboratory experiments to attempt to estimate the rate of predation, the species-specific preference for eggs, and to assess whether amphibian eggs were preyed also when predators were provided with an alternative food. Study area, materials and methods The study area includes four temporary ponds located in an abandoned limestone quarry at 280 m a.s.l near 123 Bergeggi (Liguria, North West Italy). The ponds (30 m2 each, maximum depth: 0.6 m) are artificial and were created for amphibians conservation purpose. The area is characterised by Mediterranean climate and the pond hydroperiod may last from October to June depending on precipitations. Quarrying activities were stopped in 1960 and since then the area has been naturalised by grass and shrub vegetation typical of the Mediterranean maquis. The ostracod Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr 1808) is common in the four ponds where the Balearic green toad Bufo balearicus Boettger 1880, the Parsley frog Pelodytes punctatus (Daudin 1802) and the Stripeless treefrog Hyla meridionalis Boettger 1874, also breed. The Common toad Bufo bufo (Linnaeus 1758) spawns in only one of these ponds which was our study pond. Fig. 1 Egg strings of Common toad (Bufo bufo) in a temporary pond in Northern Italy were hardly attacked by ostracods (Heterocypris incongruens) which preyed on the embryos Aquat Ecol Fig. 2 A Common toad tadpole (Bufo bufo) preyed upon ostracods (Heterocypris incongruens) as observed in a temporary ponds in Northern Italy In March 2009, we observed that ostracod density was very heterogeneous among different microhabitats of the pond where B. bufo breeds. Swarms of H. incongruens were concentrated around and on the eggs strings of the Common toad (Fig. 1) and high densities were recorded also upon small submerged sprigs. We also observed that ostracods seemed to have attacked some tadpoles (Fig. 2). In order to test the hypothesis that H. incongruens might prey on amphibian eggs and tadpoles, we set up several laboratory experiments. Experiment 1 and 3 were designed to estimate the rate of predation, Experiment 2 and 4 to assess whether amphibian eggs were preyed also when predators were provided with an alternative food, Experiment 5 and 6 to assess the species-specific preference for eggs and tadpoles, respectively, Experiment 7 was design to control for factor other than predation on the deterioration of eggs. For each experiment, Ostracods, eggs and larvae of B. bufo and H. meridionalis, and several sprigs covered by incrusting algae were collected by hand from the study pond and carried in laboratory. At the time of collection, pond water parameters were: temperature = 15°C, pH = 8.91, conductivity = 302 lS/cm, dissolved oxygen = 152 ppm). In the lab, seven aquaria (20 9 30 9 20 cm, for a total volume of 12 l) were filled with tap water and kept at constant temperature (20°C). Tap water was left to stand for 24 h before the experiments began to allow evaporation of the chlorine. In each experiment, we placed amphibian eggs and ostracods in the same aquarium. Ostracods were placed in the aquaria 2 h earlier than amphibian eggs or tadpoles in order to allow for their acclimatisation to experimental conditions. At the beginning of the experiment, the tap water parameters were: temperature = 20°C, pH = 8.44, conductivity = 169 lS/cm, dissolved oxygen = 89 ppm. Aquaria were not exposed to direct solar radiation. Given that experiments were performed in April, photoperiod may be considered homogenous (12 h light vs. 12 h darkness). The difference between the initial number of amphibian eggs and the final number of eggs was considered as the number of preyed eggs. We used the following combination of ostracods, eggs, larvae and other vegetable food (i.e. sprigs, which were substituted every 24 h to provide abundant availability of incrusting algae). Experiment 1 (Exp.1): 21 eggs of B. bufo were placed in an aquarium with 300 ostracods. Experiment 2 (Exp.2): 21 eggs of B. bufo were placed in an aquarium with 300 ostracods and sprigs. Experiment 3 (Exp.3): 20 eggs of H. meridionalis were placed in an aquarium with 300 ostracods. Experiment 4 (Exp.4): 20 eggs of H. meridionalis were placed in an aquarium with 300 ostracods and sprigs. Experiment 5 (Exp.5): 21 eggs of B. bufo and 21 eggs of H. meridionalis were placed in the same aquarium with 300 ostracods. Experiment 6 (Exp.6): 12 tadpoles of B. bufo and 12 tadpoles of H. meridionalis were placed in the same aquarium with 300 ostracods and sprigs. All tadpoles were at Gosner stage 26-30 (sensu Gosner 1960). Experiment 7 (Exp.7): especially given the amphibian eggs may dissolved quickly under the action of aquatic fungi (e.g. Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995), 15 toad eggs were placed in a box without ostracods or sprigs to verify whether other factors could cause the disappearing of amphibian eggs. In experiments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, we recorded the number of amphibian eggs every 12 h for a period of 7 days. In experiment 6 and 7, we recorded the number of amphibian tadpoles or eggs only at the beginning and at the end of the experiment (i.e. after 7 days). In order to evaluate whether the difference in the level of ostracod predation upon eggs or tadpoles in the different experiments was statistically significant, 123 Aquat Ecol we processed the final results (i.e. the number of egg remained in a couple of boxes, or in the same box in the Exp.5 and Exp.6) with the Fisher’s exact test using StatisticaÒ ver. 5.0 (Statistica package, Statsoft Inc., USA). In particular, we tested the results of Exp.1 versus Exp.2 and Exp.3 versus Exp.4 to highlight the possible preferences between amphibian eggs and alternative food. We also tested the results of Exp.5 and Exp.6 to disclose preferences showed by ostracods between two sources of amphibian eggs (toad and treefrog) as food. fluctuating physical and chemical parameters (Lahr 1997). The mussel shrimp Heterocypris sp., in particular, is highly tolerant to different environmental conditions, as expected in freshwater species with a wide geographical distribution (Yılmaz and Külköylüoğlu 2006). Furthermore, dechlorinated tap water is often used for freshwater crustaceans (De Meester and Dumont 1989; Hanazato and Ooi 1992; Oda et al. 2007) and tadpoles (e.g. Kiesecker et al. 1996; Saidapur et al. 2009) in ecotoxicological and ecological laboratory experiments. This suggests that the use of tap water in our experiment did not alter significantly the results. Results Interactions between ostracods and amphibians In the control experiment (Exp.7), we did not observe decreasing of amphibian egg number, as we did not observe any difference in the number of live eggs at the beginning and at the end of the treatment. The rate of predation showed by ostracods versus amphibian eggs, in different conditions, is reported in Fig. 3. The number of common toad eggs preyed upon by ostracods differed significantly if alternative vegetable food was available (Exp.1 vs. Exp.2, twotailed Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.009). Conversely, no significant differences were detected when treefrog eggs and alternative food were provided (Exp.3 vs. Exp.4, two-tailed Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.096). Finally, if ostracods could choose between toad and treefrog eggs, they did not show any feeding preference (Exp.5, two-tailed Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.744). However, when they were provided with tadpoles of B. bufo and H. meridionalis (plus incrusted sprigs), ostracods preyed significantly more on toad larvae than on treefrog larvae (Exp.6, twotailed Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.005). Amphibian eggs and larvae are eaten by a wide range of specialised and occasional consumers. However, no literature records include ostracods (Gunzburger and Travis 2005; Romano and Di Cerbo 2007). Given that in the control experiment (Exp. 7), the amphibian eggs were not dissolved by fungi (egg number remained unvaried), the decrease in amphibian eggs observed in the experiments was because of predation by Ostracods, confirming our field observations. Freshwater ostracods usually prey small invertebrates (Deschiens et al. 1953; Deschiens 1954; Cohen 1982; Cohen and Kornicker 1987; Janz 1992). Although swarms of freshwater ostracods on larger animals have been recorded, in these cases, predation was not observed. In fact, despite the high number of ostracods observed on a single amphibian reported in the literature, i.e. on specimens of Yellow bellied toad (Bombina variegata), Smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) and Crested newt (Triturus cristatus; Seidel 1989), there was neither evidence that the ostracods were attacking toads or newts nor evidence that they could cause them injuries or death. Probably, ostracods were feeding on the amphibian skin secretions, although the may use amphibians also for dispersion, as suggested by Seidel (1989). However, in our field observation, the tadpoles were completely immobilised by ostracods (Fig. 2) and thus they were unable to act as vector. Morphological adaptation to scavenging, the most common feeding strategy in the ostracod order Podocopa, includes the possession of powerful furcal rami (also called uropod). Although the uropod is used for locomotion, it may also have several major functions in Discussion Experimental conditions The use of tap water in our experiments could influence the trophic behaviour of the ostracods. However, organisms adapted to life in temporary freshwater ponds, probably suffer in the slightest degree for artificial changes of their aquatic mean because they are well adapted to unpredictable and 123 Aquat Ecol Exp. 1 vs Exp. 2 24 Exp.1: toad eggs 22 Exp.2: toad eggs and algae 20 18 16 14 N 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 hours 24 Exp. 3 vs Exp. 4 22 Exp. 3: treefrog eggs 20 Exp. 4: treefrog eggs and algae 18 16 14 N 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 hours 24 Experiment 5 22 Toad eggs 20 Treefrog eggs 18 16 14 N 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168 hours days I II III IV V VI VII Fig. 3 Histograms showing the initial number of amphibian eggs (Bufo bufo and Hyla meridionalis) in five experiments and their decreasing due to predation by ostracods (Heterocypris incongruens). See the text for further details the feeding process, including holding on carcasses of large animals and their cutting and dismembering (Parker 1997). Coherently, H. incongruens often attacks small invertebrates (Ganning 1971; Meisch 2000) and feeds on carcasses of water birds (Reichholf 1983) and amphibians (D. Ottonello unpublished data). 123 Aquat Ecol Palatability of amphibian eggs The eggs and larvae of the two amphibian species chosen in our study are considered different in their palatability. Eggs and tadpoles of Bufo are generally considered to be unpalatable, in particular to many vertebrates and invertebrates with chewing mouth parts (e.g. Henrikson 1990; Licht 1968; but see also the criticism to this consideration in Gunzburger and Travis 2005), while eggs and larvae of Hyla are unanimously considered palatable (e.g. Gunzburger and Travis 2005; Heuesser 1970; Licht 1969; McDiarmid and Altig 1999). Henrikson (1990) found that the eggs of B. bufo were palatable to invertebrate predators with sucking mouth parts while tadpoles were attractive to most predators. Although ostracods may be considered as possessor of a chewing apparatus (Meisch 2000), our results show that they were not repulsed by Common toad eggs, embryos and tadpoles. Thus, early life stages of Bufo were not found unpalatable at a higher rate than other taxa, confirming earlier observations by Gunzburger and Travis (2005). Ostracods seemed to prefer toad tadpoles to treefrog larvae. Woodward (1983) found that reduced mobility of tadpoles lowers mortality risk from invertebrate predators. However, Bufo and Hyla larvae, at the development stages included in our study, have similar mobility (Chovanec 1992). Conversely, locomotor mode of Bufo tadpoles, which use the whole tail for locomotion, could makes them easier detectable than Hyla tadpoles, which move mainly the tail tip and therefore move less water mass (Heyer et al. 1975; Chovanec 1992). Furthermore, there are other factors which may contribute in determining the different predation level suffered by tadpoles of these two amphibian species. First of all, the frontal position of the eyes of Bufo tadpoles allows a restricted visual field in comparison with that of Hyla (see Arnold and Ovenden 2002). Second, the toad tadpoles, in comparison with other anuran species, exhibit lower manoeuvrability, lower speed of swimming and lower predator avoiding movement because they have less axial musculature (Wassersug and von Seckendorf Hoff 1985; Saidapur et al. 2009). Third, Bufo tadpoles prefer to swim in the whole water column in contrast to Hyla larvae which prefer water surface (see Chovanec 1992). Differently to other anurans, B. bufo tadpoles lack constitutive 123 morphological defences against invertebrate predators, which are more dissuaded by morphological and behavioural defences than by chemical deterrents (Álvarez and Nicieza 2006). Overall, ostracods, as other aquatic invertebrate predators, seem to prefer toad tadpoles to other anuran larvae, probably because they are more easily detectable by mean of visual and tactile stimuli. Conclusions The knowledge, although sometimes anecdotal, of a trophic connection between two (or more) taxa, i.e. nodes in the food web, is the fundamental prerequisite for further and more complex studies which intend to understand community ecology. Recently redefined food webs invalidated partially some earlier generalisations showing that long food chain and omnivory are common in food web structure (e.g. Martinez 1991; Schmid-Araya et al. 2002). The consumption of a given prey item depends by the predator hunger level and by the availability of alternative food (Gunzburger and Travis 2005). Amphibian eggs and larvae could be considered an alternative trophic resource for ostracods, if other type of food is lacking. Although less amphibian eggs were consumed when alternative trophic resource was provided, in all tests that we carried out, a portion of amphibian eggs was also eaten by ostracods. Presumably, the prey–predator relationship we report here cannot be merely considered as an occasional behaviour, but it is likely a widespread feeding strategy, at least when ostracods and amphibians are abundant in the same aquatic site. Prey–predator interactions between Ostracoda and Amphibia were so far considered unidirectional, with ostracods relegated in the role of preys and amphibians (both at larval and adult stages) in the role of predators (e.g. Cicort-Lucaciu et al. 2005; Dutra and Callisto 2005; Spencer and Blaustin 2001). However, trophic web where ostracods and amphibians are involved are proved to be more complex, and a variety of feeding relationships between these taxa is now reported. Ostracods may pass unharmed through the amphibian gut (being eliminate in the faeces and thus potentially colonising new habitats, see Hartmann 1975; Lopez et al. 2002). Furthermore, we report for the first time that they are able to behave as active predators on amphibians. In freshwater Aquat Ecol ecosystems, the answer to the question ‘‘who is the prey, Amphibia or Ostracoda?’’, is not straightforward and unambiguous. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Fabrizio Oneto for the help during field survey and Giampaolo Rossetti for the taxonomic determination of ostracods and suggestions. Federico Marrone, Antonio Ruggiero and Sebastiano Salvidio provided useful suggestions and stimulating discussions. We are indebted to Ylenia Chiari, Filippo Barbanera and Angelo G. Solimini for the linguistic revision and for the critical reading of the ms. Finally, we would like to thank two other anonymous reviewers for their precious suggestions during the revision of the manuscript. References Álvarez D, Nicieza AG (2006) Factors determining tadpole vulnerability to predators: can prior experience compensate for a suboptimal shape? Evol Ecol 20:523–534 Arnold N, Ovenden D (2002) Field guide to the reptiles and amphibians of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins Publishers, London Balian EV, Segers H, Lévèque C, Martens K (2008) The freshwater animal diversity assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595:627–637 Belgrano A, Scharler UM, Ulanowicz RE (2005) Aquatic food webs: an ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford Bennett MB, Heupel MR, Bennett SM, Parker AR (1997) Sheina orri (Myodocopa: Cypridinidae), an ostracod parasitic on the gills of the epaulette shark, Hemiscyllium ocellatum (Elasmobranchii: Hemiscyllidae). Int J Parasitol 27:275–281 Blaustein AR, Wake DB (1990) Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon? Trends Ecol Evol 5:203–204 Blondel J, Aronson J (1999) Biology and wildlife of the mediterranean region. Oxford University Press, Oxford Céréghino R, Biggs J, Oertli B, Declerck S (2008) The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia 597:1–6 Chovanec A (1992) The influence of tadpole swimming behaviour on predation by dragonfly nymphs. AmphibiaReptilia 13:341–349 Cicort-Lucaciu AS, Ardeleanu A, Cupşa D, Naghi N, Dalea A (2005) The trophic spectrum of a Triturus cristatus (Laurentus 1768) population from Plopiş Mountains area (Bihor County, Romania). North-West J Zool 1:31–39 Cohen AC (1982) Ostracoda. In: Parker SP (ed) Synopsis and classification of living organisms. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 181–202 Cohen AC, Kornicker LS (1987) Catalog of the Rutidermatidae (Crustacea: Ostracoda). Smith Contrib Zool 449:1–11 De Meester L, Dumont HJ (1989) Phototaxis in Daphnia: interaction of hunger and genotype. Limnol Oceanogr 34:1322–1325 De Meester L, Declerck S, Stoks R, Louette G, Van de Meutter F, De Bie T, Michels E, Brendonck L (2005) Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolutionary biology. Aq Cons: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 15:715–726 Della Bella V, Bazzanti M, Chiarotti F (2005) Macroinvertebrate diversity and conservation status of Mediterranean ponds in Italy: water permanence and mesohabitat influence. Aq Cons: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 15:583–600 Deschiens R (1954) Méchanisme de l’action léthale de Cypridopsis hartwigi sur les mollusques vecteurs des bilharzioses. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 47:399–401 Deschiens R, Lamy L, Lamy H (1953) Sur un ostracode prédateur de Bullins et de Planorbes. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 46:956–958 Dutra SL, Callisto M (2005) Macroinvertebrates as tadpole food: importance and body size relationships. Rev Bras Zool 22:923–927 Eitam A, Blaustein L, Van Damme K, Dumont HJ, Martens K (2004) Crustacean species richness in temporary pools: relationships with habitat traits. Hydrobiologia 525:125– 130 Ganning B (1971) On the ecology of Heterocypris salinus, H. incongruens and Cypridopsis aculeata (Crustacea, Ostracoda) from Baltic brackish-water rockpools. Mar Biol 8:271–279 Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190 Griffiths RA (1997) Temporary ponds as amphibian habitats. Aq Cons: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 7:119–126 Gunzburger MS, Travis J (2005) Critical literature review of the evidence for unpalatability of amphibian eggs and larvae. J Herpetol 39:547–571 Hanazato T, Ooi T (1992) Morphological responses of Daphnia ambigua to different concentrations of a chemical extract from Chaoborus flavicans. Freshw Biol 27:379–385 Hartmann G (1975) Ostracoda. In: Bronn, Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, 5(1)(2)(4)(14):569–786 Hayes MP, Jennings MR (1990) Vanishing amphibians. New mystery in an old pattern. Mainstream 21:20–23 Henrikson B-I (1990) Predation on amphibian eggs and tadpoles by common predators in acidified lakes. Hol Ecol 13:201–206 Heuesser H (1970) Spawn eating by tadpoles as possible cause of specific biotope preferences and short breeding times in European anurans (Amphibia, Anura). Oecologia 4:83–88 Heyer WR, Mcdarmid RW, Weigmann DL (1975) Tadpoles, predation and pond habitats in the tropics. Biotropica 7:100–111 Janz H (1992) Eine fakultative Beziehung zwischen Cypria ophthalmica (Jurine) (Ostracoda) und Gyraulus crista (L.) (Gastropoda) und ihre mögliche biologische Bedeutung. Stutt Beitr Naturk A 476:1–11 Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR (1995) Synergism between UV-B radiation and a pathogen magnifies amphibian embryo mortality in nature. PNAS 92:11049–11052 Kiesecker JM, Chivers DP, Blaustin AR (1996) The use of chemical cues in predator recognition by western toad tadpoles. Anim Behav 52:1237–1245 Kupfer A, Nabhitabhata J, Himstedt W (2005) From water into soil: trophic ecology of a caecilian amphibian (Genus Ichthyophis). Acta Oecol 28:95–105 123 Aquat Ecol Lahr J (1997) Ecotoxicology of organisms adapted to life in temporary freshwater ponds in arid and semi-arid regions. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 32:50–57 Licht LE (1968) Unpalatability and toxicity of toad eggs. Herpetologica 24:93–98 Licht LE (1969) Palatability of Rana and Hyla eggs. Am Mid Nat 82:296–298 Lopez LCS, Gonçalves DA, Mantovani A, Rios RI (2002) Bromeliad ostracods pass through amphibian (Scinaxax perpusillus) and mammalian guts alive. Hydrobiologia 485:209–211 Martens K, Schön I, Meisch C, Horne DJ (2008) Global diversity of ostracods (Ostracoda, Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:185–193 Martinez ND (1991) Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolution on the little rock lake food web. Ecol Monogr 61:367–392 McDiarmid RW, Altig R (1999) Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Meisch C (2000) Freshwater Ostracoda of Western and Central Europe. Spektrum Academischer, Heidelberg Oda S, Hanazato T, Fujii K (2007) Change in phenotypic plasticity of a morphological defence in Daphnia galeata (Crustacea: Cladocera) in a selection experiment. J Limnol 66:142–152 Parker AR (1997) Functional morphology of the myodocopine (Ostracoda) furca and sclerotized body plate. J Crustac Biol 17:632–653 Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD (1997) Towards an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316 Reichholf J (1983) Ökologie und Verhalten des Muschelkrebses Heterocypris incongruens Claus, 1892. Spixiana 6:205–210 Romano A, Di Cerbo AR (2007) Leech predation on amphibian eggs. Acta Zool Sin 53:750–754 Rossetti G, Martens K, Meisch C, Tavernelli S, Pieri V (2006) Small is beautiful: diversity of freshwater ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) in marginal habitats of the province of Parma (Northern Italy). J Limnol 65:121–131 123 Saidapur SK, Veeranagoudar DK, Hiragond NC, Shanbhag BA (2009) Mechanism of predator–prey detection and behavioral responses in some anuran tadpoles. Chemoecol 19: 21–28 Schmid-Araya JM, Schmid PE, Robertson A, Winterbottom J, GjerlØv J, Hildrew AG (2002) Connectance in stream food webs. J Anim Ecol 71:1056–1062 Seidel B (1989) Phoresis of Cyclocypris ovum (Jurine) (Ostracoda, Podocopida, Cyprididae) on Bombina variegata (L.) (Anura, Amphibia) and Triturus vulgaris (L.) (Urodela, Amphibia). Crustaceana 57:171–176 Spencer M, Blaustin L (2001) Risk of predation and hatching of resting eggs in the ostracod Heterocypris incongruens. J Crustac Biol 21:575–581 Urban MC (2007) Predator size and phenology shape prey survival in temporary ponds. Oecologia 154:571–580 Vannier J, Abe K, Ikuta K (1998) Feeding in myodocope ostracods: functional morphology and laboratory observations from videos. Mar Biol 132:391–408 Wake DB (1991) Declining amphibian populations. Science 253:860 Wassersug RJ, von Seckendorf Hoff K (1985) The kinematics of swimming in anuran larvae. J Exp Biol 119:1–30 Wilbur HM (1997) Regulation of structure in complex systems: experimental temporary pond communities. Ecology 68: 1437–1452 Wilkinson IP, Wilby PR, Williams M, Siveter DJ, Vannier J (2007) Ostracod carnivory through time. In: Elewa AMT (ed) Predation in organisms: a distinct phenomenon. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 39–57 Williams P, Whitfield M, Biggs J, Bray S, Fox G, Nicolet P, Sear D (2004) Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biol Cons 115:329–341 Woodward BD (1983) Predatory-prey interactions and breeding-pond use of temporary-pond species in a desert anuran community. Ecology 64:1549–1555 Yılmaz F, Külköylüoğlu O (2006) Tolerance, optimum ranges, and ecological requirements of freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea) in Lake Aladag (Bolu, Turkey). Ecol Res 21:165–173