生物對捕食者的反應，在其生存上扮演重要的角色。本研究的目的是比較小雨蛙蝌蚪及澤蛙蝌蚪面對捕食者善變蜻蜓稚蟲的行為反應，以及瞭解小雨蛙蝌蚪如何偵測捕食者善變蜻蜓稚蟲之存在。研究分成三個實驗進行，第一個實驗是比較小雨蛙蝌蚪及澤蛙蝌蚪在有捕食者及沒有捕食者的情形下，蝌蚪的分佈及活動狀況，以了解是否有躲避捕食者的行為。在面對捕食者善變蜻蜓稚蟲時，小雨蛙蝌蚪會遠離捕食者或至少與捕食者保持一定距離，且活動模式會改變。也就是小雨蛙蝌蚪較不做長時間的連續活動，而是以短暫的休息時間，將活動分成數個段落，並且減慢活動速率，但總移動距離不變。而澤蛙蝌蚪則沒有上述的行為反應。第二個實驗是在僅有來自善變蜻蜓稚蟲之視覺線索或化學線索的情況下，觀察小雨蛙蝌蚪是否有躲避捕食者的行為。由實驗結果發現，在僅有善變蜻蜓稚蟲之化學線索時，小雨蛙蝌蚪會遠離捕食者，其活動速率也會減慢；但若是僅能看見善變蜻蜓稚蟲而沒有化學線索時，小雨蛙蝌蚪不會有上述的行為反應。因此，小雨蛙蝌蚪辨識捕食者的機制，主要是仰賴化學線索。第三個實驗，當捕食者停留時間太短，化學線索太弱時，小雨蛙蝌蚪不會表現出逃避捕食者之行為。

Anti-predator responses are important to the survival of animals. The purposes of this study are (1) to compare the behavioral responses of two anuran larvae, Microhyla ornata and Rana limnocharis, to the predator, dragonfly larvae, Neurothemis ramburii vers terminnata, (2) to understand the mechanism that is responsible for the recognition of the predator, and (3) to investigate the strength of the predator’s chemical cue on the behavioral responses of larval M. ornata. Three experiments were conducted for these purposes. The first experiment compared the distribution and activity pattern of the two larval species in the presence or absence of the predator, in order to identify the anti-predatory behaviors. The second experiment examined the distribution and the swimming rate of larval M. ornata when visual cue or chemical cue of the predator was provided. The third experiment reduced the length of the predator’s stay in the water and studied the distribution of larval M. ornata. The results show that M. ornata larvae tend to stay away from the predator and avoid continuous long distance swimming by breaking it into several short activity bouts and reducing swimming rate in the presence of the predator. Microhyla ornata larvae increase the length of activity time to compensate for the reduced swimming rate, so that the total distance traveled by the larvae remain unchanged. However, larvae of R. limnocharis do not show such responses in the presence of the predator. Microhyla ornata larvae recognize the predators by the predator’s chemical cues. When the chemical cues are not strong enough, larvae of M. ornata do not avoid the predators.

1. Anholf, B. R, Werner, E. E. & Skelly, D. K, 2000. Effect of food and predators in the activity of four larval ranid frogs. Ecology, 81(2), 3509-3521.
2. Belden, L. K., Wildy, E. L, Hatch, A. C. & Blaustein, A. R. 2002. juvenile western toads, Bufo boreas, avoid chemical cues of snakes fed juvenile, but not laruval, conspecifics. Anim. Behav., 59, 871 - 875.
3. Black, J. H. 1970, A possible stimulus for the formation of some aggregations in tadpoles of Scaphious bombifrons. Proc. Oklahoma. Acad. Sci.,49, 13-14.
4. Chivers, D. P., Wesinden, B. D. & Smith, R. J. F. 1996. Damsenlfy larvae learn to recognize predators from chemical cues in the predator's diet. Anim. Behav., 52, 315-320.
5. Dodson, S. I., Crosl, T.A., Peckarsky, B. L., Kats, L. B., Covich, A. P. & Culp, J. M.1994. Not-visual communication in freshwater benthos : an overview. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 13, 268-282.
6. Gosner, K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetological, 16, 183-190.
7. Griffiths, R. D., Schley, L. Sharp, P. E, Dennis, J. L. & Roman, A. 1998. Behavioural response of Mallorcan midwife toad tadpoles to natural and unnatural snake predators. Anim. Behav., 55, 207-214.
8. Heyer, W. R., McDiarmid, R. W. & Weigmann, D. L. 1976. Tadpoles, predation and pond habitats in the tropics. Biotropica, 7, 100-111.
9. Howe, N. R. & Harris, L. G. Transfer of the sea anemone pheromone,
anthopleurine, by the mudibranch Aeolidia papillosa. J. Chem. Ecol.,4, 551-561.
10 Kats, L. B. & Dill, L. M. 1998. The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience, 5, 361-394.
11. Kats,L. B., Petranka, J. W. & Sih, A. 1988. Anti-predator defenses and the pesistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology, 69, 1865-1870.
12. Kiesecker, J. M., Chiver, DP. & Blaustein, A. R. 1996. The use of chemical cues in predator recognize by western toad tadpoles. Anim. Behav., 52, 1237-1245.
13. Kruse, K. C. & Francis, M. G. 1977. A predation deterrent in larvae of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 106, 248-252.
14. Kruse, K. C. & Stone, B. M. 1984. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) learn to avoid feeding on toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles. Anim. Behav., 32, 1035-1039.
15. Lawler, S. P. 1989. Behavioral responses to predators and predation risk in four species of larval anurans. Anim. Behav., 38, 1039-1047.
16. Leips, J., MaManus, M. G. & Travis, J. 2000. Response of treefrog larvae to drying ponds : comparing temporary and permanent pond breeders. Ecology, 81(11), 2997-3008.
17. Lieftinck, K. 1984. Catalogue of Taiwan dragonflies (Insecta : Odonta). Asian Ecol. Soc. 81pp.
18. Lima, S. L. 1998. Nonlethal Effects in the Ecology of Predator-Prey interactions: What are the ecological effects of anti-predator decision-making? BioScience, 48, 25-34.
19. Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. 1990. Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool., 68. 619-640.
20. Magurran, A. E. 1989. Acquired recognition of predator odour in the European minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus). Ethology, 82, 216-223.
21. Mathis, A. & Smith, R. J. F. 1993. Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize northern pike, Esox lucius, as predators on the basis of chemical stimuli from minnows in the pike's diet. Anim. Behav., 46, 645-656.
22. Petranka, J. W.＆ Hayes, L.1998. Chemically mediated avoidance of a predatory odonate (Anax junius) by American toad (Bufo americanus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles. Behav.Sociobio.,42 (4) ,263-271.
22.Petranka, J. W., Kats, L. B. & Sih, A. 1987. Predator-prey interactions among fish and larval amphibians : use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish. Anim. Behav., 35, 420-425.
23. Relyea, R. A. & Werner, E. E. 1999. Quantifying the relation between predator-induced behavior and growth performance in larval anurans. Ecology, 80 (6), 2117-2124.
24. Semlitsch, R. D. & Ryer, H.-U. 1992. Modification of anti-predator behavior in tadpoles by environmental conditioning. J. Anim. Ecol., 61, 353-360.
25. Sih, A. 1987. Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In Predatio : Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities (Ed. by A. Sih & W. C. Kerfoot). 203-224. Hanover: University Press of New England.
26. Sih, A. & Kats, L. B. 1994. Age, experience, and the response of streamside salamander hatchlings to chemical cues from predatory sunfish. Ethology, 96, 253-259.
27. Sih, A., Petranka, J. W. & Kats, L. B. 1988. The dynamics of prey refuge use: a model and tests with sunfish and salamander larvae. Am. Nat., 132, 463-493.
28. Smith, R. L.＆ Smith, T. M. 1998. Elements of Ecology. The Benjamin/Cummings publishing company, Menlo Park. CA.
29. Spieler, M.2003. Risk of predation affects aggregation size：a study with tadpoles of Phrynomantis microps (Anura：Microhydae). Anim. Behav., 65, 179-184.
30. Stauffer, H. P. & Semlitsch, R. D., 1993. Effects of visual, chemical and tactile cues of fish on the behavioural responses of tadpole. Anim. Behav., 46, 335-364.
31. Thiemann, R. J. & Wassersug, R. J. 2000. Patterns and consequences of behavioral responses to predators and parasites in Rana tadpoles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 71, 513-528.
32. Voris, H. K. & Bacon, J. P., 1966. Differential predation on tadpoles. Copeia, 1966, 594-598.
33. Waldman, B. 1982. Sibling association among schooling toad tadpoles: field evidence and implications. Anim. Behav., 30, 700-713.
34. Wassersug, R. J. 1971. On the comparative palatability of some dry-season tadpoles from Costa Rica. Am. Midl. Nat., 86, 101-109.
35. Watt, P. J., Nottingham, S. F. & Young, S. 1997. Toad tadpole aggregation behavior: evidence for a predator avoidance function. Anim. Behav., 54, 865-872.
36. Weld, P. J. 1990. Responses by vertebrates to chemicals from predators. In : Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, vol. 5 (Ed. By D. W. MacDonald, D. Muller-Schwarze & R. M. Silverstein), pp. 501-521. New York: Plenum Press.
37. Woodward, B. D. 1983. Predator-prey interactions and breeding-pond use of temporay-pond species in a desert anuran community. Ecology, 64, 1594-1555.
38. Wilson, D. J. & Lefcort, H. 1993. The effect of predator diet on the alarm response of red-legged frog, Rana aurora, tadpoles. Anim. Behav., 46, 1017-1019.
39. 呂光洋。林政彥。莊國碩。1990。台灣地區野生動物資料庫（一）兩棲類（Ⅱ）。行政院農業委員會。台北。
40. 呂光洋。杜銘章。向高世。1999。台灣兩棲爬行動物圖鑑。自然生態保育協會。台北。
41. 汪良仲。2000。台灣的蜻蛉。人人月曆股份有限公司。台北。
42. 高立。吳聲海。掠食者對腹斑蛙蝌蚪生存之影響。1998。動物行為暨生態研討會摘要。
43. 楊懿如。1998。賞蛙圖鑑－台灣蛙類野外觀察指南。中華民國自然生態攝影學會。台北。