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.     

Indirect ecological impacts of an invasive toad on predator–prey interactions among native species

One of the many ways that invasive species can affect native ecosystems is by modifying the behavioural and ecological interactions among native species. For example, the arrival of the highly toxic cane toad (Bufo marinus) in tropical Australia has induced toad-aversion in some native predators. Has that shift also affected the predators’ responses to native prey—for example, by reducing vulnerability of native tadpoles via a mimicry effect, or increasing vulnerability of other prey types (such as insects) via a shift in predator feeding tactics? We exposed a native predator (northern trout gudgeon, Mogurnda mogurnda) to toad tadpoles in the laboratory, and measured effects of that exposure on the fish’s subsequent intake of native tadpoles and crickets. As predicted, toad-exposed fishes reduced their rate of predation on (palatable) tadpoles of native frogs (Litoria caerulea and L. nasuta). If alternative prey (crickets) were available also, the toad-exposed fishes shifted even more strongly away from predation on native tadpoles. Thus, invasion of a toxic species can provide a mimicry benefit to native taxa that resemble the invader, and can shift predation pressure onto other taxa.     

Responses of Australian wading birds to a novel toxic prey type, the invasive cane toad Rhinella marina

The impact of invasive predators on native prey has attracted considerable scientific attention, whereas the reverse situation (invasive species being eaten by native predators) has been less frequently studied. Such interactions might affect invasion success; an invader that is readily consumed by native species may be less likely to flourish in its new range than one that is ignored by those taxa. Invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in Australia have fatally poisoned many native predators (e.g., marsupials, crocodiles, lizards) that attempt to ingest the toxic anurans, but birds are more resistant to toad toxins. We quantified prey preferences of four species of wading birds (Nankeen night heron, purple swamphen, pied heron, little egret) in the wild, by offering cane toads and alternative native prey items (total of 279 trays offered, 14 different combinations of prey types). All bird species tested preferred the native prey, avoiding both tadpole and metamorph cane toads. Avoidance of toads was strong enough to reduce foraging on native prey presented in combination with the toads, suggesting that the presence of cane toads could affect predator foraging tactics, and reduce the intensity of predation on native prey species found in association with toads.     

Competing tadpoles: Australian native frogs affect invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in natural waterbodies

The cane toad (Rhinella marina) is one of the most successful invasive species worldwide, and has caused significant negative impacts on Australian fauna. Experimental work in the laboratory and in mesocosms has shown that tadpoles of native frogs can affect survival, size at metamorphosis and duration of larval period of cane toad tadpoles. To test if these effects occur in nature, we conducted a field experiment using two temporary ponds where we set up enclosures with tadpoles of native green tree frogs (Litoria caerulea) and cane toads in treatments with a range of densities and combinations. The presence of green tree frog tadpoles significantly decreased the growth rate of toad tadpoles and increased the duration of their larval period in both ponds; in one pond, frog tadpoles also significantly reduced the body length and mass of metamorph toads. Toad tadpoles did not have any significant negative effects on green tree frog tadpoles, but there was strong intraspecific competition within the latter species: increased frog tadpole density resulted in increased larval period and reduced survival, growth rate and size at metamorphosis for frogs at one or both ponds. Our results are encouraging for the possibility of using native frogs as one component of an integrated approach to the biological control of cane toads.     

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.     

After the crash: How do predators adjust following the invasion of a novel toxic prey type?

The ability of a native predator to adjust to a dangerously toxic invasive species is key to avoiding an ongoing suppression of the predator's population and the trophic cascade of effects that can result. Many species of anurophagous predators have suffered population declines due to the cane toad's (Rhinella marina: Bufonidae) invasion of Australia; these predators can be fatally poisoned from attempting to consume the toxic toad. We studied one such toad‐vulnerable predator, the yellow‐spotted monitor (Varanus panoptes: Varanidae), testing whether changes to the predator's feeding behaviour could explain how the species persists following toad invasion. Wild, free‐roaming lizards from (1) toad‐naïve and (2) toad‐exposed populations were offered non‐toxic native frogs and slightly toxic cane toads (with parotoid glands removed) in standardized feeding trials. Toad‐naïve lizards readily consumed both frogs and toads, with some lizards displaying overt signs of illness after consuming toads. In contrast, lizards from toad‐exposed populations consumed frogs but avoided toads. Repeated encounters with toads did not modify feeding responses by lizards from the toad‐naïve populations, suggesting that aversion learning is limited (but may nonetheless occur). Our results suggest that this vulnerable predator can adjust to toad invasion by developing an aversion to feeding on the toxic invader, but it remains unclear as to whether the lizard's toad‐aversion arises via adaptation or learning.     

Mechanisms of competition between tadpoles of Australian frogs (Litoria spp.) and invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina)

相似文献   

A review of ecological interactions between native frogs and invasive cane toads in Australia

Translocated from their native range in the Americas in 1935, cane toads (Rhinella marina, Bufonidae) have now spread through much of tropical and subtropical Australia. The toad's invasion and impact have attracted detailed study. In this paper, I review information on ecological interactions between cane toads and Australian anurans. The phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity between frogs and toads creates opportunities for diverse interactions, ranging from predation to competition to parasite transfer, plus a host of indirect effects mediated via impacts of toads on other species, and by people's attempts to control toads. The most clear‐cut effect of toads on frogs is a positive one: reducing predator pressure by fatally poisoning anuran‐eating varanid lizards. However, toads also have a wide range of other effects on frogs, some positive (e.g. taking up parasites that would otherwise infect native frogs) and others negative (e.g. eating frogs, poisoning frogs, competing with tadpoles). Although information on such mechanisms predicts intense interactions between toads and frogs, field surveys show that cane toad invasion has negligible overall impacts on frog abundance. That counter‐intuitive result is because of a broad balancing of negative and positive impacts, coupled with stochastic (weather‐induced) fluctuations in anuran abundance that overwhelm any impacts of toads. Also, the impacts of toads on frogs differ among frog species and life‐history stages, and depend upon local environmental conditions. The impacts of native frogs on cane toads have attracted much less study, but may well be important: frogs may impose biotic resistance to cane toad colonization, especially via competition in the larval phase. Overall, the interactions between native frogs and invasive toads illustrate the diverse ways in which an invader's arrival can perturb the native fauna by both direct and indirect mechanisms, and by which the native species can curtail an invader's success. These studies also offer a cautionary tale about the difficulty of predicting the impact of an invasive species, even with a clear understanding of mechanisms of direct interaction.     

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.     

The Ability of Three Species of Tadpoles to Differentiate among Potential Fish Predators

The ability of prey to respond to novel predator cues may depend on the generality or specificity of the response to predator cues. We used laboratory behavioral experiments to examine the ability of tadpoles of three species of anurans (American toad, Bufo americanus ; bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana ; and green frog, R. clamitans ) to respond to the presence of two native potential predators (bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus ; and largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides ) and one non-native potential predator (goldfish, Carassius auratus ). We also examined the effect of tadpole size on the behavioral responses of American toads and green frogs to predator cues. All three species of tadpoles responded to the presence of predator cues, although the specific responses varied among species. American toads and green frogs reduced activity in the presence of at least some fish cues, but bullfrog tadpoles did not change their activity. Bullfrogs decreased use of vegetation in the presence of some predator cues, whereas American toads and green frogs did not. American toads only responded to the presence of bluegill cues but not the other fish predator cues, whereas bullfrogs and green frogs responded more generally to the fish predators. In both American toads and green frogs, tadpole size affected behavior. For American toads, activity increased, as did the use of the vegetated side of the aquarium, in larger tadpoles. Not only did size affect American toad behavior, but it also influenced the responses of the tadpoles to predator cues. For green frogs, activity decreased in larger tadpoles. Our results suggest that behavioral responses of tadpoles to predator cues can be influenced by both the identity of the predator and the prey, as well as the size of the potential prey.     

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.     

Foraging traits of native predators determine their vulnerability to a toxic alien prey

相似文献   

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.     

Ecological impacts of invading species: Do parasites of the cane toad imperil Australian frogs?

Parasite transfer to native fauna is a potentially catastrophic impact of invasive species. Introduced cane toads in Australia frequently host the nematode lungworm Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala, which reduces viability of metamorph toads. If native frogs are vulnerable to this South American parasite, cane toad invasion may affect native species via this route; but if the native taxa are not vulnerable, we may be able to exploit the parasites for managing toads. Our laboratory experiments show that infective larvae can penetrate the body of all seven species of Australian frogs (five hylids: Cyclorana longipes, Litoria caerulea, Litoria dahlii, Litoria nasuta, Litoria rothii, one myobatrachid: Opisthodon ornatus, and one limnodynastid: Limnodynastes convexiusculus) we tested, but most did not host the adult worms at the end of the trials, and none showed major impairment of growth, survival or locomotor performance. One native tree‐frog (L. caerulea) retained high infection levels with few ill effects, suggesting that we might be able to use this taxon as a reservoir species to build up local parasite densities for toad management. However, the interspecific variation in lungworm retention suggests that generalizations about parasite effects on native frogs will be elusive.     

No signs of Na+/K+‐ATPase adaptations to an invasive exotic toxic prey in native squamate predators

Invasions by exotic toxic prey, like the release of the South American cane toad (Bufo (Rhinella) marinus) to the toad‐free Australian continent in 1935, have been shown to result in massive declines in native predator numbers. Due to minor nucleotide mutations of the Na⁺/K⁺‐ATPase gene most Australian squamate predators are highly susceptible to cane toad toxin. However, in spite of this, predators like yellow‐spotted goannas (Varanus panoptes) and red‐bellied black snakes (Pseudechis porhyriacus) still persist in parts of Queensland where they, in some areas, have co‐existed with cane toads for more than 70 years. Here, we show that the amino acids of the Na⁺/K⁺‐ATPase enzyme in the two species do not provide toad toxin resistance, and hence the two Queensland predators are still highly susceptible to cane toad toxin. Both yellow‐spotted goannas and lace monitors (Varanus varius) have, however, been recorded avoiding feeding on cane toads in areas where they co‐exist with this toxic amphibian. Moreover, both varanids have also been shown to learn to avoid feeding on toads when first subjected to conditioned taste aversion. Such behavioural shifts may therefore explain why yellow‐spotted goannas and red‐bellied black snakes still exist in cane toad infested areas of Queensland. The process appears, however, to be unable to rapidly restore varanid populations to pre‐toad population numbers as even after 10 years of co‐existence with cane toads in the Northern Territory, we see no signs of an increase in yellow‐spotted goanna numbers.     

Native Australian frogs avoid the scent of invasive cane toads

Invasive species can affect the ecosystems they colonize by modifying the behaviour of native taxa; for example, avoidance of chemical cues from the invader may modify habitat use (shelter site selection) by native species. In laboratory trials, we show that metamorphs of most (but not all) native frog species on a tropical Australian floodplain avoid the scent of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus Linnaeus 1758). Cane toads also avoid conspecific scent. This response might reduce vulnerability of metamorph frogs and toads to larger predatory toads. However, similar avoidance of one type of pungency control (garlic), and the presence of this avoidance behaviour in frogs at the toad invasion front (and hence, with no prior exposure to toads), suggest that this may not be an evolved toad‐specific response. Instead, our data support the simpler hypothesis that the metamorph anurans tend to avoid shelter sites that contain strong and unfamiliar scents. Temporal and spatial differences in activity of frogs versus toads, plus the abundance of suitable retreat sites during the wet season (the primary time of frog activity), suggest that avoiding toad scent will have only a minor impact on the behaviour of native frogs. However, this behavioural impact may be important when environmental conditions bring toads and frogs into closer contact.     

Behavioural responses of an Australian colubrid snake (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Dendrelaphis punctulatus</Emphasis>) to a novel toxic prey item (the Cane Toad <Emphasis Type="Italic">Rhinella marina</Emphasis>)

The invasion of a toxic prey type can differentially affect closely related predator species. In Australia, the invasive Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) kills native anurophagous predators that cannot tolerate the toad’s toxins; but predators that are physiologically resistant (i.e., belong to lineages that entered Australia recently from Asia, where toads of other species are common) have been more resilient. In the current study, we examine the case of an Asian-derived predator lineage that relies on behavioural not physiological adaptations to deal with toads. Despite their Asian origins, Common Tree Snakes (Dendrelaphis punctulatus) are highly sensitive to toad toxins; yet this snake has not declined in abundance due to toads. We exposed captive (field-collected) snakes to toads of different sizes and ontogenetic stages, to quantify feeding responses and outcomes. Tree Snakes were less likely to attack toads than to attack native frogs, and rarely retained their hold on large toads. Tree Snakes ingested frogs of a wide range of body sizes but only ingested very small toads (<?1 g vs. up to 30 g for frogs). Behavioural responses were virtually identical between Tree Snakes from invaded versus yet-to-be-invaded areas, suggesting that preadaptation (from Asia) rather than adaptation (within Australia) is the key to successful utilisation of this novel but potentially toxic prey resource. Nonetheless, a previously-documented shift in relative head sizes of Tree Snakes coincident with toad invasion suggests that the ancestral behavioural tactic may have been reinforced by a recent morphological shift that further reduces maximal prey size, and hence the risk of fatal poisoning.     

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.     

Out of the frying pan: Reintroduction of toad‐smart northern quolls to southern Kakadu National Park

Invasive species are a leading cause of native biodiversity loss. In Australia, the toxic, invasive cane toad Rhinella marina has caused massive and widespread declines of northern quolls Dasyurus hallucatus. Quolls are fatally poisoned if they mistakenly prey on adult toads. To prevent the extinction of this native dasyurid from the Top End, an insurance population was set up in 2003 on two toad‐free islands in Arnhem Land. In 2015, quolls were collected from one of these islands (Astell) for reintroduction. We used conditioned taste aversion to render 22 of these toad‐naïve quolls toad averse. Seven quolls received no taste aversion training. The source island was also predator‐free, so all quolls received very basic predator‐aversion training. In an attempt to re‐establish the mainland population, we reintroduced these 29 northern quolls into Kakadu National Park in northern Australia where cane toads have been established for 13 years. The difference in survival between toad‐averse and toad‐naive quolls was immediately apparent. Toad‐naive quolls were almost all killed by toads within 3 days. Toad‐averse quolls, on the other hand, not only survived longer but also were recorded mating. Our predator training, however, was far less effective. Dingo predation accounted for a significant proportion of toad‐smart quoll mortality. In Kakadu, dingoes have been responsible for high levels of quoll predation in the past and reintroduced animals are often vulnerable to predation‐mediated population extinction. Dingoes may also be more effective predators in fire degraded landscapes. Together, these factors could explain the extreme predation mortality that we witnessed. In addition, predator aversion may have been lost from the predator‐free island populations. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive but need to be investigated because they have clear bearing on the long‐term recovery of the endangered northern quoll.     

Far from home: responses of an American predator species to an American prey species in a jointly invaded area of Australia

Far from their native ranges in the Americas, two invasive species come into contact in Australian waterbodies. Cane toads (Rhinella marina) fatally poison many anurophagous predators, whereas eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) voraciously consume anuran larvae. As cane toads spread south along Australia’s east coast, they are colonizing areas where mosquito fish are abundant. What happens when these two American invaders encounter each other in Australia? We tested the responses to toad tadpoles of mosquito fish from populations that were sympatric versus allopatric with cane toads. Toad-sympatric fish generally ignored toad tadpoles. Toad-allopatric fish initially consumed a few tadpoles, but rapidly developed an aversion to these toxic prey items. The laboratory-reared progeny of toad-allopatric fishes were more likely to approach toad tadpoles than were the offspring of toad-sympatric fishes, but the two groups learned toad-avoidance at similar rates. Thus, mosquito fish show an innate aversion to cane toad tadpoles (perhaps reflecting coevolution with North American bufonid taxa), as well as an ability to rapidly learn taste-aversion. Our comparisons among populations suggest that several decades of toad-free existence in Australia caused a decline in the fishes’ innate (heritable) aversion to toads, but did not affect the fishes’ capacity to learn toad-avoidance after an initial exposure. Any impact of mosquito fish on cane toads thus is likely to be transitory. The rapid (<100-year) time frame of these shifts (the initial weakening of the fishes’ response during toad-allopatry, and its recovery after secondary contact) emphasizes the dynamic nature of faunal responses during biological invasions, and the interplay between adaptation and phenotypic plasticity.