Eat and be eaten: reciprocal predation between axolotls (Ambystoma mexicanum) and crayfish (Cambarellus montezumae) as they grow in size

References

• Allan J, Flecker A, McClintock NL. 1987. Prey preference of stoneflies: sedentary vs mobile prey. Oikos. 49:323–331.10.2307/3565768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbeau MA, Scheibling RE. 1994. Behavioral mechanisms of prey size selection by sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verrill) and crabs (Cancer irroratus Say) preying on juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus Gmelin). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 180:103–136.10.1016/0022-0981(94)90082-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardwell JH, Ritzi CM, Parkhurst JA. 2007. Dietary selection among different size classes of larval Ambystoma jeffersonianum (Jefferson salamander). Northeast Nat. 14:293–299.10.1656/1092-6194(2007)14[293:DSADSC]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen B. 1996. Predator foraging capabilities and prey antipredator behaviours: pre-versus postcapture constrains on size-dependent predator-prey interactions. Oikos. 76:368–380.10.2307/3546209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CITES] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 2012. Available from: http://www.cites.org/
   Google Scholar
• Claessen D, Van Oss C, de Roos AM, Persson L. 2002. The impact of size-dependent predation on population dynamics and individual life history. Ecology. 83:1660–1675.10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1660:TIOSDP]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen JE, Pimm SL, Yodzis P, Saldana J. 1993. Body size of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J Anim Ecol. 62:67–78.10.2307/5483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contreras V, Martínez-Meyer E, Valiente E, Zambrano L. 2009. Recent decline and potential distribution in the last remnant area of the microendemic Mexican axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum). Biol Cons. 142:2881–2885.10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emmerson MC, Raffaelli D. 2004. Predator–prey body size, interaction strength and the stability of a real food web. J Anim Ecol. 73:399–409.10.1111/jae.2004.73.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeman RM, Constantin BU, Gruver KS, Rossy C. 2009. Managing predators to protect endangered species and promote their successful reproduction. In: Columbus A, Kuznetsov L, editors. Endangered species: new research. Lincoln (NE): Staff publications; p. 171–187.
   Google Scholar
• Garvey JE, Stein RA. 1993. Evaluating how chela size influence the invasion potential of an introduced crayfish (Oreonectes rusrticus). Am Midl Nat. 129:172–181.10.2307/2426446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graue V. 1998. Estudio genético y demográfico de la población del anfibio Ambystoma mexicanum (Caudata: Ambystomatidae) del lago de Xochimilco [Genetic and demographic study of the population of the amphibian Ambystoma mexicanum (Caudata: Ambystomidae) in the Xochimilco Lake] [dissertation]. Mexico City: National Autonomous University of Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Hance T, Van Impe G. 1999. The influence of initial age structure on predator–prey interaction. Ecol Model. 114:195–211.10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00148-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs HH III. 1993. Trophic relationships of North American freshwater crayfishes and shrimp. Milwaukee, WI: Contributions in Biology and Geology, Milwaukee Public Museum.
   Google Scholar
• Hosseini M, Hatami B, Saboori A, Allahyari H, Ashouri A. 2005. Predation by Allothrombium pulvinum on the spider mites Tetranychus urticae and Amphitetranychus viennensis: predation rate, prey preference and functional response. Exp Appl Acarol. 37:173–181.10.1007/s10493-005-2846-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes RN, Dunkin S. 1984. Behavioural components of prey selection by dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L), feeding on mussels, Mytilus edulis L., in the laboratory. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 77:45–68.10.1016/0022-0981(84)90050-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [IUCN] International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. Red list of threatened species. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/
   Google Scholar
• Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, et al. 2001. Ecology – biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 294:804–808.10.1126/science.1064088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marín AI. 2007. Preferencia de plantas para la ovoposición del ajolote Ambystoma mexicanum en condiciones de laboratorio [Axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) oviposition plants preference in laboratory conditions] [dissertation]. Mexico City: National Autonomous University of Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Mascaro M, Hidalgo LE, Chiappa-Carrara X, Simoes N. 2003. Size-selective foraging behaviour of blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), when feeding on mobile prey: active and passive components of predation. Mar Freshw Behav Phy. 36:143–159.10.1080/10236240310001603224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann KS. 2000. The diversity–stability debate. Nature. 405:228–233.10.1038/35012234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCauley E, Wilson WG, de Roos AM. 1993. Dynamics of age-structured and spatially structured predator–prey interaction: individual based models and population-level formulations. Am Nat. 142:412–442.10.1086/an.1993.142.issue-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merlín-Uribe Y, Contreras-Hernández A, Astier-Calderón M, Jensen OP, Zaragoza R, Zambrano L. 2013. Urban expansion into a protected natural area in Mexico City: alternative management scenarios. J Environ Plann Manage. 56:1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittelbach GG, Chesson PL. 1987. Predation risk: indirect effects on fish populations. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A, editors. Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. New England: University Press of New England Unites; p. 315–332.
   Google Scholar
• [NOM] Norma Oficial Mexicana-059-SEMARNAT. 2010. Protección ambiental-especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio Lista de especies en riesgo [Mexican native flora and fauna species and environmental protection; risk categories and specification for their inclusion, exclusion or change in the species risk list].
   Google Scholar
• Özeti N, Wake BD. 1969. The morphology and evolution of the tongue and associated structures in salamanders and newts. Copeia. 1969:91–123.
   Google Scholar
• Persson L, Andersson J, Wahlstrom E, Eklov P. 1996. Size-specific interaction in lake systems: predation gape limitation and prey growth rate and mortality. Ecology. 77:900–911.10.2307/2265510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rangel R. 2004. Estudio poblacional de Cambarellus montezuame en la pista de remo y canotaje “Virgilio Uribe”, Xochimilco, México DF [Population analysis of Cambarellus montezumae in the Olympic rowing canal of the stadium “Virgilio Uribe”, Xochimilco] [dissertation]. Mexico City: National Autonomous University of Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Rubbo MJ, Mirza RS, Belden LK, Falkenbach JJ, Storrs SI, Kiesecker JM. 2006. Evaluating a predator-prey interaction in the field: the interaction between beetle larvae (predator) and tadpoles (prey). J Zool. 269:1–5.10.1111/jzo.2006.269.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheffer M. 1998. Ecology of shallow lakes. Great Britain: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Smith CK, Petranka JW. 1987. Prey-size distributions and size-specific foraging success of Ambystoma larvae. Oecologia. 71:239–244.10.1007/BF00377290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein A, Magnuson JJ. 1976. Behavioral response of crayfish to a fish predator. Ecology. 57:751–761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valiente E, Tovar A, Gonzalez H, Eslava-Sandoval D, Zambrano L. 2010. Creating refuges for the Axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum). Ecol Restor. 28:257–259.10.3368/er.28.3.257
   Google Scholar
• Vander Zanden MJ, Olden JD, Gratton C. 2006. Food-web approaches in restoration ecology. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB, editors. Foundations of restoration ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press; p. 142–164.
   Google Scholar
• Von Bertrab A, Zambrano L. 2010. Participatory monitoring and evaluation of a Mexico City wetland restoration effort. Ecol Restor. 28:343–353.10.3368/er.28.3.343
   Google Scholar
• Zambrano L, Nandini S, Sarma SS, Jesus de Chaparro-Herrera D. 2011. Feeding behavior of larval Ambystoma mexicanum. Amphibia-Reptilia. 32:509–517.10.1163/156853811X610348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zambrano L, Valiente E, Vander Zanden MJ. 2010a. Food web overlap among native axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) and two exotic fishes: carp (Cyprinus carpio) and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Xochimilco, Mexico City. Biol Invasions. 12:3061–3069.10.1007/s10530-010-9697-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zambrano L, Valiente E, Vander Zanden MJ. 2010b. Stable isotope variation of a highly heterogeneous shallow freshwater system. Hydrobiologia. 646:327–336.10.1007/s10750-010-0182-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zambrano L, Vega E, Herrera LG, Prado E, Reynoso VH. 2007. A population matrix model and population viability analysis to predict the fate of endangered species in highly managed water systems. Anim Conserv. 10:297–303.10.1111/acv.2007.10.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar