PREDATOR- AND COMPETITOR-INDUCED PLASTICITY: HOW CHANGES IN FORAGING MORPHOLOGY AFFECT PHENOTYPIC TRADE-OFFS

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Evolutionary ecology of inducible morphological plasticity in predator–prey interaction: toward the practical links with population ecology (2009, background): “…of reproductive organs in individual organisms that express inducible defenses in response to predation risk represent maladaptive trait changes that may occur because of allocation trade-offs and developmental constraints (Lively 1986a; Trussell and Nicklin 2002; Relyea and Auld 2004, 2005).”
Interactive effects of predators and a pesticide on aquatic communities (2008, unknown): “... were either foraging on periphyton that was higher up on the sides of the mesocosm (analogous to shallower water that would be less shaded by phytoplankton blooms), 2) wood frogs were able to sustain themselves on lower quality periphyton than leopard frogs (Schiesari 2006), or 3) wood frogs res”
The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in response to anthropogenic disturbance (2010, background): “In the second case, the direction of plasticity might be adaptive but its expression is more costly in the new environment, such that the fitness costs now outweigh the benefits of plasticity (DeWitt, 1998; DeWitt et al., 1998; Weinig and Delph, 2001; Langerhans and DeWitt, 2002; Relyea, 2002; Relye”