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.     

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.     

Allometry and selection in a novel predator–prey system: Australian snakes and the invading cane toad

Because many organismal traits vary with body size, interactions between species can be affected by the respective body sizes of the participants. We focus on a novel predator–prey system involving an introduced, highly toxic anuran (the cane toad, Bufo marinus ) and native Australian snakes. The chance of a snake dying after ingesting a toad depends on the size of the snake and the size of the toad, and ultimately reflects the effect of four allometries: (1) physiological tolerance (the rate that physiological tolerance to toad toxin changes with snake size); (2) swallowing ability (the rate that maximal ingestible toad size (i.e. snake head size) increases with snake body size); (3) prey size (the rate that prey size taken by snakes increases with snake head size) and (4) toad toxicity (the rate that toxicity increases with toad size). We measured these allometries, and combined them to estimate the rate at which a snake's resistance changes with toad toxicity. The parotoid glands (and thus, toxicity) of toads increased disproportionately with toad size (i.e. relative to body size, larger toads were more toxic) but simultaneously, head size relative to body size (and thus, maximal ingestible prey size relative to predator size) declined with increasing body size in snakes. Thus, these two allometries tended to cancel each other out. Physiological tolerance to toxins did not vary with snake body size. The end result was that across snake species, mean adult body size did not affect vulnerability. Within species, however, smaller predators were more vulnerable, because the intraspecific rate of decrease in relative head size of snakes was steeper than the rate of increase in toxicity of toads. Thus, toad invasion may cause disproportionate mortality of juvenile snakes, and adults of the sex with smaller mean adult body sizes.     

Predator behaviour and morphology mediates the impact of an invasive species: cane toads and death adders in Australia

The arrival of an invasive species can have severe impacts on native species. The extent of the impact, as well as the speed at which native species may mount an adaptive response, depend upon the correlation between impact and the individual phenotypes of the native species. Strong correlation between phenotype and impact within the native species raises the possibility of rapid adaptive response to the invader. Here, we examine the impact of a dangerous newly arrived prey species (the highly toxic cane toad Bufo marinus ) on naïve predators (death adders Acanthophis praelongus ) in northern Australia. During laboratory trials and field radiotracking, toads killed 48% of the adders we studied. Long-term monitoring of the population also suggests a massive decline (>89%) in recent years concurrent with the arrival of toads. Variation in snake physiology (resistance to toad toxin) had little bearing on snake survival in the field. Snake behaviour (tendency to attack toads) and morphology (body size and head size), however, were strong predictors of snake survival. Smaller snakes with relatively small heads, and snakes that were unwilling to attack toads in the laboratory, had much higher survival rates in the field. These results show that toads have a massive impact on death adder populations, but that snake phenotypes strongly mediate this impact. Thus natural selection is operating on these adder populations and an adaptive response is a possibility. If these adders can rapidly shift toad-relevant morphological and behavioural traits (either through plastic or evolved means), they will ultimately face a lowered impact from this toxic invader.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Interacting impacts of invasive plants and invasive toads on native lizards

The ecological impacts of an invasive species may be reduced by prior invasions if selective pressures imposed by earlier events preadapt the native biota to deal with the newer arrival. In northwestern Australia, invasion of the cane toad (Rhinella marina) kills many native predators if they ingest the highly toxic toads. Remarkably, the toads' defensive toxins (bufadienolides) are chemically similar to those of another invasive species: an ornamental plant from Madagascar, Bryophyllum spp. (Crassulaceae, mother-of-millions). Omnivorous lizards (bluetongue skinks, Tiliqua scincoides) are imperiled by the invasion of toads in northwestern Australia, but conspecifics from other areas of the continent (those where exotic plants were introduced and including areas where toads have yet to invade) are less affected because they exhibit higher physiological tolerance of toad toxins (and also of plant toxins). The willingness of captive bluetongues to consume both toads and these plants and the high correlation in the lizards' sensitivity to toad toxins versus plant toxins suggest that exotic plants may have imposed strong selection on the lizards' physiological tolerance of bufadienolides. As a result, populations of lizards from areas previously exposed to these alien plants may be preadapted to deal with the toxins of the more recent anuran invader.     

Invasive cane toads might initiate cascades of direct and indirect effects in a terrestrial ecosystem

Understanding the impacts that invasive vertebrates have on terrestrial ecosystems extends primarily to invaders’ impacts on species with which they interact directly through mechanisms such as predation, competition and habitat modification. In addition to direct effects, invaders can also initiate ecological cascades via indirect population level effects on species with which they do not directly interact. However, evidence that invasive vertebrates initiate ecological cascades in terrestrial ecosystems remains scarce. Here, we ask whether the invasion of the cane toad, a vertebrate invader that is toxic to many of Australia’s vertebrate predators, has induced ecological cascades in a semi-arid rangeland. We compared activity of a large predatory lizard, the sand-goanna, and abundances of smaller lizards preyed upon by goannas in areas of high toad activity near toads’ dry season refuges and areas of low toad activity distant from toads’ dry season refuges. Consistent with the hypothesis that toad invasion has led to declines of native predators susceptible to poisoning, goanna activity was lower in areas of high toad activity. Consistent with the hypothesis that toad-induced goanna decline lead to increases in abundance the prey of goannas, smaller lizards were more abundant in areas of high toad activity. Structural equation modelling showed a positive correlation between goanna activity and distance from dry season refuge habitats used by toads. The abundances of small lizards was correlated negatively with goanna activity and distance from dry season refuges of toads. Our findings provide support for the notion that invasions by terrestrial vertebrates can trigger ecological cascades.     

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.     

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.     

Exploiting intraspecific competitive mechanisms to control invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina)

If invasive species use chemical weapons to suppress the viability of conspecifics, we may be able to exploit those species-specific chemical cues for selective control of the invader. Cane toads (Rhinella marina) are spreading through tropical Australia, with negative effects on native species. The tadpoles of cane toads eliminate intraspecific competitors by locating and consuming newly laid eggs. Our laboratory trials show that tadpoles find those eggs by searching for the powerful bufadienolide toxins (especially, bufogenins) that toads use to deter predators. Using those toxins as bait, funnel-traps placed in natural waterbodies achieved near-complete eradication of cane toad tadpoles with minimal collateral damage (because most native (non-target) species are repelled by the toads' toxins). More generally, communication systems that have evolved for intraspecific conflict provide novel opportunities for invasive-species control.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The spatial ecology of cane toads (Bufo marinus) in tropical Australia: Why do metamorph toads stay near the water?

Abstract Cane toads (Bufo marinus) have invaded large areas of Australia, killing many native predators as they have done so. The metamorph stage of the life cycle – the first terrestrial phase, immediately after transformation from the tadpole – is critical for ecological impact (because these animals are small enough to be prey for many native predators) and for potential control of toad populations (because small body size renders metamorphs vulnerable to desiccation). To quantify the spatial and temporal distribution of metamorph toads, and the biotic and abiotic factors that might affect their distributions, we surveyed toad breeding sites in Australia's wet‐dry tropics (Adelaide River floodplain, NT) in both the wet season and the dry season. Metamorphs were concentrated close to the water's edge during the dry season, especially at midday when desiccation rates were highest. During the wet season, metamorphs were widely dispersed through the landscape. Our surveys indicate that abiotic factors (risk of desiccation) are most favourable for metamorph toads close to the pond edge, but biotic factors (food supply, and risk of competition and cannibalism) are most favourable away from the water. Operative temperatures were spatially homogeneous and sublethal, and so are unlikely to influence metamorph distribution. Desiccation risk fluctuated on a diel cycle as well as seasonally. We predict that metamorph toads benefit from dispersing as soon as desiccation risk allows them to do so, and hence the distribution of metamorph toads will shift dynamically in response to weather‐mediated changes in rates of evaporative water loss.     

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.