Toad’s tongue for breakfast: exploitation of a novel prey type,the invasive cane toad,by scavenging raptors in tropical Australia

Although interest in the ecological impacts of invasive species has largely focused on negative effects, some native taxa may benefit from invader arrival. In tropical Australia, invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) have fatally poisoned many native predators (e.g., marsupials, crocodiles, lizards) that attempt to ingest the toxic anurans, but birds appear to be more resistant to toad toxins. We quantified offtake of dead (road-killed) cane toads by raptors (black kites (Milvus migrans) and whistling kites (Haliastur sphenurus)) at a site near Darwin, in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Raptors readily took dead toads, especially small ones, although native frogs were preferred to toads if available. More carcasses were removed in the dry season than the wet season, perhaps reflecting seasonal availability of alternative prey. Raptors appeared to recognize and avoid bufotoxins, and typically removed and consumed only the toads’ tongues (thereby minimizing toxin uptake). The invasion of cane toads thus constitutes a novel prey type for scavenging raptors, rather than (as is the case for many other native predators) a threat to population viability.     

Does intraspecific niche partitioning in a native predator influence its response to an invasion by a toxic prey species?

Abstract The introduced and highly toxic cane toad (Bufo marinus) is rapidly spreading across northern Australia where it may affect populations of large terrestrial vertebrate predators. The ecological impact of cane toads will depend upon the diets, foraging modes and habitat use of native predators, and their feeding responses to cane toads. However, intraspecific niche partitioning may influence the degree of vulnerability of predators to toxic prey, as well as the time course of the impact of alien invaders on native species. We studied the diet of the northern death adder Acanthophis praelongus and their feeding responses to cane toads. In the laboratory, death adders from all size classes and sexes readily consumed frogs and cane toads. Diets of free ranging A. praelongus from the Adelaide River floodplain were more heterogeneous. Juvenile snakes ate mainly frogs (39% of prey items) and small scincid lizards (43%). Both sexes displayed an ontogenetic dietary shift from lizards to mammals, but adult males fed on frogs (49%) and mammals (39%) whereas adult females (which grew larger than males) fed mainly on mammals (91%) and occasionally, frogs (9%). Feeding rates and body condition of adult snakes varied temporally and tracked fluctuations in prey availability. These results suggest that cane toads may negatively affect populations of northern death adders in the Darwin region. However, we predict that different size and sex classes of A. praelongus will experience differential mortality rates over different timescales. The initial invasion of large toads may affect adult males, but juveniles may be unaffected until juvenile toads appear the following year, and major affects on adult female death adders may be delayed until annual rainfall fluctuations reduce the availability of alternative (rodent) prey.     

Behavioural tactics used by invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) to exploit apiaries in Australia

Behavioural flexibility plays a key role in facilitating the ability of invasive species to exploit anthropogenically‐created resources. In Australia, invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) often gather around commercial beehives (apiaries), whereas native frogs do not. To document how toads use this resource, we spool‐tracked cane toads in areas containing beehives and in adjacent natural habitat without beehives, conducted standardized observations of toad feeding behaviour, and ran prey‐manipulation trials to compare the responses of cane toads versus native frogs to honeybees as potential prey. Toads feeding around beehives travelled shorter distances per night, and hence used different microhabitats, than did toads from nearby control sites without beehives. The toads consumed live bees from the hive entrance (rather than dead bees from the ground), often climbing on top of one another to gain access to the hive entrance. Prey manipulation trials confirm that bee movement is the critical stimulus that elicits the toads’ feeding response; and in standardized trials, native frogs consumed bees less frequently than did toads. In summary, cane toads flexibly modify their movements, foraging behaviour and dietary composition to exploit the nutritional opportunities created by commercial beehives, whereas native anurans do not.     

A native dasyurid predator (common planigale,Planigale maculata) rapidly learns to avoid a toxic invader

Abstract Interactions between invasive species and native fauna afford a unique opportunity to examine interspecific encounters as they first occur, without the complications introduced by coevolution. In northern Australia, the continuing invasion of the highly toxic cane toad Bufo marinus poses a threat to many frog‐eating predators. Can predators learn to distinguish the novel toxic prey item from native prey (and thus, avoid being poisoned), or are longer‐term genetically based changes to attack behaviour needed before predators can coexist with toads? To predict the short‐term impact of cane toads on native predators, we need to know the proportion of individuals that will attack toads, the proportion surviving the encounter, and whether surviving predators learn to avoid toads. We quantified these traits in a dasyurid (common planigale, Planigale maculata) that inhabits tropical floodplains across northern Australia. Although 90% of naïve planigales attacked cane toads, 83% of these animals survived because they either rejected the toad unharmed, or killed and consumed the prey snout‐first (thereby avoiding the toxin‐laden parotoid glands). Most planigales showed one‐trial learning and subsequently refused to attack cane toads for long time periods (up to 28 days). Toad‐exposed planigales also avoided native frogs for up to 9 days, thereby providing an immediate benefit to native anurans. However, the predators gradually learnt to use chemical cues to discriminate between frogs and toads. Collectively, our results suggest that generalist predators can learn to distinguish and avoid novel toxic prey very rapidly – and hence, that small dasyurid predators can rapidly adapt to the cane toad invasion. Indeed, it may be feasible to teach especially vulnerable predators to avoid cane toads before the toads invade, by deploying low‐toxicity baits that stimulate taste‐aversion learning.     

Sublethal costs associated with the consumption of toxic prey by snakes

Costs of plant defences to herbivores have been extensively studied, but costs of chemical defences to carnivores are less well understood. We examine the costs to Australian keelback snakes (Tropidonophis mairii, Gray 1841) of consuming cane toads (Bufo[Rhinella]marinus Linnaeus 1758). Cane toads (an invasive species in Australia) are highly toxic. Although keelbacks can consume toads without dying (unlike most Australian snakes), we show that cane toads are poor quality prey for keelbacks. Toads are of low net nutritional value, take longer to consume than do native frogs and reduce the snake's locomotor performance for up to 6 h after ingestion of a meal. These latter effects may increase a snake's vulnerability to predation. Nutritional content of vertebrate prey is not the only factor driving the evolution of foraging behaviour; other more subtle costs, such as risk of predation, may be widespread.     

Behavioural responses of native predators to an invasive toxic prey species

One important impact of invasive species may be to modify the behaviour of native taxa. For example, the invasion of highly toxic cane toads (Bufo marinus) kills many anurophagous native predators, but other predators learn to recognize and avoid the toxic invader. We exposed native fish (northern trout gudgeons, Mogurnda mogurnda) and Dahl's aquatic frogs (Litoria dahlii) to cane toad tadpoles, then monitored the predator's responses during subsequent trials. Both the frogs and fish initially attacked toad tadpoles, but rapidly learned not to do so. Fish and adult frogs retained their aversion for at least a week, whereas recently metamorphosed frogs did not. Clearly, the spread of cane toads through tropical Australia can modify feeding responses of native aquatic predators. For predators capable of rapid avoidance learning, the primary impact of cane toads may be on foraging behaviour rather than mortality.     

The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia

Although invasive species are viewed as major threats to ecosystems worldwide, few such species have been studied in enough detail to identify the pathways, magnitudes, and timescales of their impact on native fauna. One of the most intensively studied invasive taxa in this respect is the cane toad (Bufo marinus), which was introduced to Australia in 1935. A review of these studies suggests that a single pathway-lethal toxic ingestion of toads by frog-eating predators-is the major mechanism of impact, but that the magnitude of impact varies dramatically among predator taxa, as well as through space and time. Populations of large predators (e.g., varanid and scincid lizards, elapid snakes, freshwater crocodiles, and dasyurid marsupials) may be imperilled by toad invasion, but impacts vary spatially even within the same predator species. Some of the taxa severely impacted by toad invasion recover within a few decades, via aversion learning and longer-term adaptive changes. No native species have gone extinct as a result of toad invasion, and many native taxa widely imagined to be at risk are not affected, largely as a result of their physiological ability to tolerate toad toxins (e.g., as found in many birds and rodents), as well as the reluctance of many native anuran-eating predators to consume toads, either innately or as a learned response. Indirect effects of cane toads as mediated through trophic webs are likely as important as direct effects, but they are more difficult to study. Overall, some Australian native species (mostly large predators) have declined due to cane toads; others, especially species formerly consumed by those predators, have benefited. For yet others, effects have been minor or have been mediated indirectly rather than through direct interactions with the invasive toads. Factors that increase a predator's vulnerability to toad invasion include habitat overlap with toads, anurophagy, large body size, inability to develop rapid behavioral aversion to toads as prey items, and physiological vulnerability to bufotoxins as a result of a lack of coevolutionary history of exposure to other bufonid taxa.     

Foraging responses of predators to novel toxic prey: effects of predator learning and relative prey abundance

Learning to avoid toxic prey items may aid native predators to survive the invasion of highly toxic species, such as cane toads Bufo marinus in tropical Australia. If the predators’ initial aversion is generalized, native prey that resemble the toxic invader may receive a benefit through accidental mimicry. What ecological factors influence the acquisition of learned avoidance (and hence, the impact of invasion on both predators and native prey)? We conducted laboratory experiments to evaluate how the relative abundance of toad tadpoles compared to palatable native tadpoles (Litoria caerulea and L. rubella) affected the ability of native aquatic predators to discriminate between these two prey types. Both fish (northern trout gudgeon, Mogurnda mogurnda) and frogs (Dahl's aquatic frog, Litoria dahlii) learned to discriminate between toads and frogs within an eight‐day period. Higher abundance of toad tadpoles relative to frog tadpoles enhanced rates of predator learning, and thus reduced predation on toads and increased predation on native tadpoles. In the field, spatial and temporal variation in the relative abundance of cane toads compared to native frogs may influence the rates at which these novel toxic items are deleted from predator diets, and the duration of predator protection afforded to natives that resemble the invader.     

School for Skinks: Can Conditioned Taste Aversion Enable Bluetongue Lizards (Tiliqua scincoides) to Avoid Toxic Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) as Prey?

The invasion of cane toads (Rhinella marina) through Australia imperils native predators that are killed if they consume these toxic anurans. The magnitude of impact depends upon the predators’ capacity for aversion learning: toad impact is lower if predators can learn not to attack toads. In laboratory trials, we assessed whether bluetongue lizards (Tiliqua scincoides) – a species under severe threat from toads – are capable of learned taste aversion and whether we can facilitate that learning by exposing lizards to toad tissue combined with a nausea‐inducing chemical (lithium chloride). Captive bluetongues rapidly learned to avoid the ‘unpalatable’ food. Taste aversion also developed (albeit less strongly) in response to meals of minced cane toad alone. Our data suggest that taste aversion learning may help bluetongue lizards survive the onslaught of cane toads, but that many encounters will be fatal because the toxin content of toads is so high relative to lizard tolerance of those toxins. Thus, baiting with nausea‐inducing (but non‐lethal) toad products might provide a feasible management option to reduce the impact of cane toad invasion on these native predators.     

Adaptation or preadaptation: why are keelback snakes (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Tropidonophis mairii</Emphasis>) less vulnerable to invasive cane toads (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Bufo marinus</Emphasis>) than are other Australian snakes?

Biological invasions can expose native predators to novel prey which may be less nutritious or detrimental to predators. The introduction and subsequent spread of cane toads (Bufo marinus) through Australia has killed many anuran-eating snakes unable to survive the toad’s toxins. However, one native species, the keelback snake (Tropidonophis mairii), is relatively resistant to toad toxins and remains common in toad-infested areas. Is the keelback’s ability to coexist with toads a function of its ancestral Asian origins, or a consequence of rapid adaptation since cane toads arrived in Australia? And does the snake’s feeding preference for frogs rather than toads reflect an innate or learned behaviour? We compared keelback populations long sympatric with toads with a population that has encountered toads only recently. Unlike toad-vulnerable snake species, sympatry with toads has not affected keelback toxin tolerances or feeding responses: T. mairii from toad-sympatric and toad-naïve populations show a similar sensitivity to toad toxin, and a similar innate preference for frogs rather than toads. Feeding responses of neonatal keelbacks demonstrate that learning plays little or no role in the snake’s aversion to toads. Thus, behavioural aversion to B. marinus as prey, and physiological tolerance to toad toxins are pre-existing innate characteristics of Australian keelbacks rather than adaptations to the cane toad’s invasion of Australia. Such traits were most likely inherited from ancestral keelbacks that adapted to the presence of bufonids in Asia. Our results suggest that the impact of invasive species on native taxa may be strongly influenced by the biogeographic histories of the species involved.     

Something different for dinner? Responses of a native Australian predator (the keelback snake) to an invasive prey species (the cane toad)

Predictions from foraging theory suggest that the probability a native predator will incorporate a novel type of prey (such as an invasive species) into its diet depends upon the potential benefits (e.g., nutrient input) vs. costs (e.g., handling time) of ingesting it. Cane toads (Bufo marinus) were introduced to Australia in 1935 and are highly toxic to many frog-eating snakes, thus there was strong selection to delete toads from the diet of these species. What has happened, however, to the feeding responses of an Australian snake species that is able to consume toads without dying? Our field surveys in northeastern Queensland show that, despite their high tolerance to toad toxins (compared to other native snakes), keelbacks (Tropidonophis mairii) feed primarily on native frogs rather than cane toads. This pattern occurs because the snakes show active prey preferences; even under standardized conditions in the laboratory, snakes are more likely to consume frogs than toads. When they are force-fed, snakes frequently regurgitate toads but not frogs. Thus, despite the high availability of the abundant toads, these invasive anurans are largely avoided as prey. This probably occurs because consumption of toads, although not lethal to keelbacks, causes significant sublethal effects and confers little nutritional benefit. Hence, keelback populations are not threatened by toad invasion, but neither do the snakes benefit substantially from the availability of a new type of potential prey.     

Impacts of eggs and tadpoles of the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus) on aquatic predators in tropical Australia

Invasive species affect native ecosystems in a variety of ways, and the magnitude of impact may depend upon many factors. In an invading species such as the cane toad (Bufo marinus), the multiphasic life history creates a potential for impact to differ between life history stages. Previous research on the impact of cane toads in Australia has focused on fatal poisoning of predators that ingest terrestrial stages of the toad, but aquatic stages (eggs, larvae) are toxic also. We exposed nine native Australian fish species and one native Australian turtle species to the eggs and larvae of toads. Strong species differences were evident, both in palatability (propensity to attack the egg or larva), and in subsequent responses (e.g. taste and reject the item, vs. ingest it). Toad eggs were less likely than toad tadpoles to be attacked, but also less likely to be rejected before ingestion (probably because the non‐toxic jelly coat masks the presence of toxins in the ovum). As a result, predators were far more likely to be killed by ingesting toad eggs than toad tadpoles. Fortuitously, the spatial and temporal availability of toad egg masses restricts encounter rates with predators, so that overall ecological impact may be low despite the high vulnerability of a fish or turtle that encounters such an egg mass. Understanding such ontogenetic shifts in the nature of interactions and magnitude of impact is crucial if we are to understand the overall ecological impact of invasive species.     

The ecological impact of commercial beehives on invasive cane toads (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Rhinella marina</Emphasis>) in eastern Australia

Understanding the factors that affect an invasive species’ viability and distribution has vital implications for biocontrol. In Australia, invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) are anecdotally reported to utilise commercial beehives as a prey resource, but that interaction has never been studied in detail. We investigated the impact of apiaries on cane toads in northern New South Wales via mark-recapture surveys, dissections, and camera-trap observations. Cane toads were the most frequent visitors to apiaries, followed by bandicoots and corvid birds. Cane toads at apiaries were more abundant and in better body condition (i.e., larger mass relative to snout-urostyle length) than were toads at nearby control sites. Toads at beehives contained more prey items per stomach (mostly bees, which were never recorded in the stomachs of toads from other sites), and adult female toads at beehives had larger livers and ovaries relative to body size. We conclude that commercial apiaries attract cane toads, influence their diets, and increase their feeding rates and reproductive capacity. Like other habitat modifications wrought by agricultural activities, honey bee colonies provide resources that facilitate the spread of cane toads through an otherwise harsh landscape matrix. Minor modifications to beehives could exclude toads, thereby eliminating their positive impact on the invader.     

Interacting biocontrol programmes: invasive cane toads reduce rates of breakdown of cowpats by dung beetles

Ecological interactions among invasive species can affect not only the success of the invaders, but also their impact on ecosystems in the invaded range. In Australia, both dung beetles (subfamily Scarabaeinae) and cane toads (Rhinella marina) were introduced for biocontrol: the beetles to break down bovine faeces piles (cowpats) that otherwise accumulate and reduce pasture productivity, and the cane toad to consume scarab beetles that eat sugarcane and thus reduce sugar production. The dung beetles have been a success, whereas the toads have been a failure. Our experimental studies show that as well as impacting native fauna directly, cane toads reduce the rate of cowpat breakdown by consuming dung beetles. In the laboratory, dehydrated toads actively sought out cowpats based on scent cues, and in field enclosures, the presence of a cane toad significantly reduced rates of cowpat decomposition. Although toads have benefited from agricultural activities, their spread across Australia likely has reduced the effectiveness of one of the most successful biocontrol programmes ever conducted in that continent.     

Keystone predators (eastern newts, Notophthalmus viridescens) reduce the impacts of an aquatic invasive species

Predation, competition, and their interaction are known to be important factors that influence the structure of ecological communities. In particular, in those cases where a competitive hierarchy exists among prey species, the presence of certain keystone predators can result in enhanced diversity in the prey community. However, little is known regarding the influence of keystone predator presence on invaded prey communities. Given the widespread occurrence of invasive species and substantial concern regarding their ecological impacts, studies on this topic are needed. In this study I used naturalistic replications of an experimental tadpole assemblage to assess the influence of predatory eastern newts, Notophthalmus viridescens, on the outcome of interspecific competition among native and nonindigenous tadpoles. When newts were absent, the presence of the tadpoles of one invasive species, the Cuban treefrog, Osteopilus septentrionalis, resulted in decreased survival and growth rate of the dominant native species, Bufo terrestris, and dominance of the tadpole assemblage by O. septentrionalis. However, the presence of one adult newt generally reduced or eliminated the negative impacts of O. septentrionalis tadpoles, resulting in comparable survival and performance of native species in invaded and noninvaded treatments. Differential mortality among the tadpole species suggests that newts preyed selectively on O. septentrionalis tadpoles, supporting the hypothesis that newts acted as keystone predators in the invaded assemblage. The presence of nonindigenous larval cane toads, Bufo marinus, did not significantly affect native species, and this species was not negatively affected by the presence of newts. Collectively, these results suggest that eastern newts significantly modified the competitive hierarchy of the invaded tadpole assemblage and reduced the impacts of a competitively superior invasive species. If general, these results suggest that the presence of certain species may be an essential factor regulating the ecological impacts of biological invasions.     

An invasive species imposes selection on life‐history traits of a native frog

As well as their direct ecological impacts on native taxa, invasive species can impose selection on phenotypic attributes (morphology, physiology, behaviour, etc.) of the native fauna. In anurans, body size at metamorphosis is a critical life‐history trait: for most challenges faced by post‐metamorphic anurans, larger size at metamorphosis probably enhances survival. However, our studies on Australian frogs (Limnodynastes convexiusculus) show that this pattern can be reversed by the arrival of an invasive species. When metamorph frogs first encounter invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus), they try to eat the toxic invader and, if they are able to do so, are likely to die from poisoning. Because frogs are gape‐limited predators, small metamorphs cannot ingest a toad and thus survive long enough to disperse away from the natal pond (and thus from potentially deadly toads). These data show that larger size at metamorphosis can reduce rather than increase anuran survival rates, because larger metamorphs are more easily able to ingest (and thus be poisoned by) metamorph cane toads. Our results suggest that patterns of selection on life‐history traits of native taxa (such as size and age at metamorphosis, seasonal timing of breeding and duration of pondside aggregation prior to dispersal) can be modified by the arrival of an invasive species. © 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2010, 100 , 329–336.     

Fatal attraction: adaptations to prey on native frogs imperil snakes after invasion of toxic toads

Adaptations that enhance fitness in one situation can become liabilities if circumstances change. In tropical Australia, native snake species are vulnerable to the invasion of toxic cane toads. Death adders (Acanthophis praelongus) are ambush foragers that (i) attract vertebrate prey by caudal luring and (ii) handle anuran prey by killing the frog then waiting until the frog''s chemical defences degrade before ingesting it. These tactics render death adders vulnerable to toxic cane toads (Bufo marinus), because toads elicit caudal luring more effectively than do native frogs, and are more readily attracted to the lure. Moreover, the strategy of delaying ingestion of a toad after the strike does not prevent fatal poisoning, because toad toxins (unlike those of native frogs) do not degrade shortly after the prey dies. In our laboratory and field trials, half of the death adders died after ingesting a toad, showing that the specialized predatory behaviours death adders use to capture and process prey render them vulnerable to this novel prey type. The toads'' strong response to caudal luring also renders them less fit than native anurans (which largely ignored the lure): all toads bitten by adders died. Together, these results illustrate the dissonance in behavioural adaptations that can arise following the arrival of invasive species, and reveal the strong selection that occurs when mutually naive species first interact.     

Behavioural responses of reptile predators to invasive cane toads in tropical Australia

The ecological impact of an invasive species can depend on the behavioural responses of native fauna to the invader. For example, the greatest risk posed by invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina Bufonidae) in tropical Australia is lethal poisoning of predators that attempt to eat a toad; and thus, a predator's response to a toad determines its vulnerability. We conducted standardized laboratory trials on recently captured (toad‐naïve) predatory snakes and lizards, in advance of the toad invasion front as it progressed through tropical Australia. Responses to a live edible‐sized toad differed strongly among squamate species. We recorded attacks (and hence, predator mortality) in scincid, agamid and varanid lizards, and in elapid, colubrid and pythonid snakes. Larger‐bodied predators were at greater risk, and some groups (elapid snakes and varanid lizards) were especially vulnerable. However, feeding responses differed among species within families and within genera. Some taxa (notably, many scincid and agamid lizards) do not attack toads; and many colubrid snakes either do not consume toads, or are physiologically resistant to the toad's toxins. Intraspecific variation in responses means that even in taxa that apparently are unaffected by toad invasion at the population level, some individual predators nonetheless may be fatally poisoned by invasive cane toads.     

Effects of an invasive species on refuge‐site selection by native fauna: The impact of cane toads on native frogs in the Australian tropics

Invasive species can induce shifts in habitat use by native taxa: either by modifying habitat availability, or by repelling or attracting native species to the vicinity of the invader. The ongoing invasion of cane toads (Rhinella marina) through tropical Australia might affect native frogs by affecting refuge‐site availability, because both frogs and toads frequently shelter by day in burrows. Our laboratory and field studies in the wet‐dry tropics show that native frogs of at least three species (Litoria tornieri, Litoria nasuta and Litoria dahlii) preferentially aggregate with conspecifics, and with (some) other species of native frogs. However, the frogs rarely aggregated with cane toads either in outdoor arenas or in standardized experimental burrows that we monitored in the field. The native frogs that we tested either avoided burrows containing cane toads (or cane toad scent) or else ignored the stimulus (i.e. treated such a burrow in the same way as they did an empty burrow). Native frogs selected a highly non‐random suite of burrows as diurnal retreat sites, whereas cane toads were less selective. Hence, even in the absence of toads, frogs do not use many of the burrows that are suitable for toads. The invasion of cane toads through tropical Australia is unlikely to have had a major impact on retreat‐site availability for native frogs.     

Detecting the impact of invasive species on native fauna: Cane toads (Bufo marinus), frillneck lizards (Chlamydosaurus kingii) and the importance of spatial replication

An understanding of which native species are severely impacted by an anthropogenic change (such as the arrival of an invasive species) and which are not is critical to prioritizing conservation efforts. However, it is difficult to detect such impacts if the native taxa exhibit strong stochastic variations in abundance; a ‘natural’ population decline might be wrongly interpreted as an impact of the invader. Frillneck lizards (Chlamydosaurus kingii) are large iconic Australian agamids, and have been reported to decline following the invasion of toxic cane toads. We monitored three populations of the species in the savanna woodland of tropical Australia over a 7‐year period bracketing toad arrival. One population crashed, one remained stable and one increased. Hence, studies on any single population might have inferred that cane toads have negative, negligible or positive effects on frillneck lizards. With the benefit of spatial replication, and in combination with observations of prey choice by captive lizards, our data suggest that invasive cane toads have had little or no effect on frillneck abundance.