Modality matters for the expression of inducible defenses: introducing a concept of predator modality

Background: Inducible defenses are a common and widespread form of phenotypic plasticity. A fundamental factor driving their evolution is an unpredictable and heterogeneous predation pressure. This heterogeneity is often used synonymously to quantitative changes in predation risk, depending on the abundance and impact of predators. However, differences in `modality', that is, the qualitative aspect of natural selection caused by predators, can also cause heterogeneity. For instance, predators of the small planktonic crustacean Daphnia have been divided into two functional groups of predators: vertebrates and invertebrates. Predators of both groups are known to cause different defenses, yet predators of the same group are considered to cause similar responses. In our study we question that thought and address the issue of how multiple predators affect the expression and evolution of inducible defenses. Results: We exposed D. barbata to chemical cues released by Triops cancriformis and Notonecta glauca, respectively. We found for the first time that two invertebrate predators induce different shapes of the same morphological defensive traits in Daphnia, rather than showing gradual or opposing reaction norms. Additionally, we investigated the adaptive value of those defenses in direct predation trials, pairing each morphotype (non-induced, Triops-induced, Notonecta-induced) against the other two and exposed them to one of the two predators. Interestingly, against Triops, both induced morphotypes offered equal protection. To explain this paradox we introduce a `concept of modality' in multipredator regimes. Our concept categorizes two-predator-prey systems into three major groups (functionally equivalent, functionally inverse and functionally diverse). Furthermore, the concept includes optimal responses and costs of maladaptions of prey phenotypes in environments where both predators co-occur or where they alternate. Conclusion: With D. barbata, we introduce a new multipredator-prey system with a wide array of morphological inducible defenses. Based on a `concept of modality', we give possible explanations how evolution can favor specialized defenses over a general defense. Additionally, our concept not only helps to classify different multipredator-systems, but also stresses the significance of costs of phenotype-environment mismatching in addition to classic `costs of plasticity'. With that, we suggest that `modality' matters as an important factor in understanding and explaining the evolution of inducible defenses

Compensatory Development and Costs of Plasticity: Larval Responses to Desiccated Conspecifics

Understanding constraints on phenotypic plasticity is central to explaining its evolution and the evolution of phenotypes in general, yet there is an ongoing debate on the classification and relationships among types of constraints. Since plasticity is often a developmental process, studies that consider the ontogeny of traits and their developmental mechanisms are beneficial. We manipulated the timing and reliability of cues perceived by fire salamander larvae for the future desiccation of their ephemeral pools to determine whether flexibility in developmental rates is constrained to early ontogeny. We hypothesized that higher rates of development, and particularly compensation for contradictory cues, would incur greater endogenous costs. We found that larvae respond early in ontogeny to dried conspecifics as a cue for future desiccation, but can fully compensate for this response in case more reliable but contradictory cues are later perceived. Patterns of mortality suggested that endogenous costs may depend on instantaneous rates of development, and revealed asymmetrical costs of compensatory development between false positive and false negative early information. Based on the results, we suggest a simple model of costs of development that implies a tradeoff between production costs of plasticity and phenotype-environment mismatch costs, which may potentially underlie the phenomenon of ontogenetic windows constraining plasticity