Content uploaded by Antonio Romano
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antonio Romano
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Aquatic Ecology
A Multidisciplinary Journal
Relating to Processes
and Structures at Different
Organizational Levels
ISSN 1386-2588
Volume 45
Number 1
Aquat Ecol (2010) 45:55-62
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
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
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 / Published online: 20 May 2010
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract Small and temporary freshwater ecosys-
tems are important biodiversity ‘‘hot spots’’ of the
Mediterranean region, and their food webs are con-
sidered as very complex systems. Amphibians and
ostracods are two highly ubiquitous classes of meta-
zoans 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 interac-
tion in few ponds in Northern Italy. To confirm this
qualitative evidence, we set up laboratory experi-
ments 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
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 con-
trasted 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 Ostra-
coda 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
Handling Editor: Piet Spaak.
D. Ottonello
Via San Domenico 200, 17027 Pietra Ligure (SV), Italy
A. Romano (&)
Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita
`di Roma ‘‘Tor
Vergata’’, Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Rome,
Italy
e-mail: antonioromano71@gmail.com
123
Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62
DOI 10.1007/s10452-010-9323-y
Author's personal copy
Meester et al. 2005) may be collectively considered as
biodiversity ‘‘hot spots’’ (e.g. Ce
´re
´ghino 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 freshwa-
ter 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 carniv-
orous (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 tree-
frogs: 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(BlausteinandWake
1990; Hayes and Jennin gs 1990) and, at least during their
egg or larval stages, for several invertebrates (Gunz-
burger and Travis 2005; Romano and Di Cerbo 2007).
In the field, we qualitatively observed an unex-
pected trophic relation between ostracods and amphib-
ians (eggs and larvae) where the first were the predator
and the second were the prey. These observations
suggested that mussel shrimps might prey on amphib-
ian 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
Bergeggi (Liguria, North West Italy). The ponds
(30 m
2
each, maximum depth: 0.6 m) are artificial
and were created for amphibians conservation pur-
pose. The area is characterised by Mediterranean
climate and the pond hydroperiod may last from
October to June depending on precipitations. Quar-
rying 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 Boett-
ger 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)ina
temporary pond in Northern Italy were hardly attacked by
ostracods (Heterocypris incongruens) which preyed on the
embryos
56 Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62
123
Author's personal copy
In March 2009, we observed that ostracod density
was very heterogeneous among different microhabi-
tats 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, Exper-
iment 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: tempera-
ture =15°C, pH =8.91, conductivity =302 lS/cm,
dissolved oxygen =152 ppm). In the lab, seven
aquaria (20 930 920 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 evapora-
tion 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: tempe rature =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 amphib-
ian 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,
Fig. 2 A Common toad tadpole (Bufo bufo) preyed upon
ostracods (Heterocypris incongruens) as observed in a tempo-
rary ponds in Northern Italy
Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62 57
123
Author's personal copy
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 Statistica
Ò
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 ostrac-
ods between two sources of amphibian eggs (toad and
treefrog) as food.
Results
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, two-
tailed 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, two-
tailed Fisher’s exact test, P=0.005).
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
fluctuating physical and chemical parameters (Lahr
1997). The mussel shrimp Heterocypris sp., in
particular, is highly tolerant to different environmen-
tal conditions, as expected in freshwater species with
a wide geographical distribution (Yılmaz and Ku
¨lk-
o
¨ylu
¨og
˘lu 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 ecolog-
ical laboratory experiments. This suggests that the
use of tap water in our experiment did not alter
significantly the results.
Interactions between ostracods and amphibians
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 inverte-
brates (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, ostrac-
ods 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 immobi-
lised 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 Podo-
copa, 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
58 Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62
123
Author's personal copy
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;Meisch2000)and
feeds on carcasses of water birds (Reichholf 1983)and
amphibians (D. Ottonello unpublished data).
days
I IIIII IV VII
VIV
Experiment 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
hours
N
Toad eggs
Treefrog eggs
Exp. 3 vs Exp. 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
hours
N
Exp. 3: treefrog eggs
Exp. 4: treefrog eggs and algae
Exp. 1 vs Exp. 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
hours
N
Exp.1: toad eggs
Exp.2: toad eggs and algae
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
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
Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62 59
123
Author's personal copy
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
morphological defences against invertebrate preda-
tors, which are more dissuaded by morphological and
behavioural defences than by chemical deterrents
(A
´lvarez 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 prerequi-
site 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. Presum-
ably, the prey–predator relationship we report here
cannot be merely considered as an occasional behav-
iour, 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 amphib-
ians (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
60 Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62
123
Author's personal copy
ecosystems, the answer to the question ‘‘who is the
prey, Amphibia or Ostracoda?’’, is not straightfor-
ward 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
A
´lvarez D, Nicieza AG (2006) Factors determining tadpole
vulnerability to predators: can prior experience compen-
sate 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 Pub-
lishers, London
Balian EV, Segers H, Le
´ve
`que 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 Parasi-
tol 27:275–281
Blaustein AR, Wake DB (1990) Declining amphibian popula-
tions: 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
Ce
´re
´ghino 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. Amphibia-
Reptilia 13:341–349
Cicort-Lucaciu AS, Ardeleanu A, Cups¸a D, Naghi N, Dalea A
(2005) The trophic spectrum of a Triturus cristatus
(Laurentus 1768) population from Plopis¸ 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) Macroinverte-
brate diversity and conservation status of Mediterranean
ponds in Italy: water permanence and mesohabitat influ-
ence. Aq Cons: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 15:583–600
Deschiens R (1954) Me
´chanisme de l’action le
´thale de Cyp-
ridopsis hartwigi sur les mollusques vecteurs des bil-
harzioses. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 47:399–401
Deschiens R, Lamy L, Lamy H (1953) Sur un ostracode
pre
´dateur 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. Herpe-
tologica 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 Ordn-
ungen 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 tad-
poles 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 mo
¨gliche 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
Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62 61
123
Author's personal copy
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, Gonc¸alves DA, Mantovani A, Rios RI (2002)
Bromeliad ostracods pass through amphibian (Scinaxax
perpusillus) and mammalian guts alive. Hydrobiologia
485:209–211
Martens K, Scho
¨n I, Meisch C, Horne DJ (2008) Global
diversity of ostracods (Ostracoda, Crustacea) in freshwa-
ter. Hydrobiologia 595:185–193
Martinez ND (1991) Artifacts or attributes? Effects of resolu-
tion 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 Lim-
nol 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 inte-
gration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics
of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst
28:289–316
Reichholf J (1983) O
¨kologie und Verhalten des Muschelkreb-
ses 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
Saidapur SK, Veeranagoudar DK, Hiragond NC, Shanbhag BA
(2009) Mechanism of predator–prey detection and behav-
ioral 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) (Os-
tracoda, Podocopida, Cyprididae) on Bombina variegata
(L.) (Anura, Amphibia) and Triturus vulgaris (L.) (Uro-
dela, 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 obser-
vations 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 breed-
ing-pond use of temporary-pond species in a desert anuran
community. Ecology 64:1549–1555
Yılmaz F, Ku
¨lko
¨ylu
¨og
˘lu O (2006) Tolerance, optimum ranges,
and ecological requirements of freshwater Ostracoda
(Crustacea) in Lake Aladag (Bolu, Turkey). Ecol Res
21:165–173
62 Aquat Ecol (2011) 45:55–62
123
Author's personal copy
