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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Not such silly sausages: Evidence suggests northern quolls exhibit aversion to toads after training with toad sausages

The invasion of toxic cane toads (Rhinella marina) is a major threat to northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) which are poisoned when they attack this novel prey item. Quolls are now endangered as a consequence of the toad invasion. Conditioned taste aversion can be used to train individual quolls to avoid toads, but we currently lack a training technique that can be used at a landscape scale to buffer entire populations from toad impact. Broad‐scale deployment requires a bait that can be used for training, but there is no guarantee that such a bait will ultimately elicit aversion to toads. Here, we test a manufactured bait – a ‘toad sausage’ – in a small captive trial, for its ability to elicit aversion to toads in northern quolls. To do this, we exposed one group of quolls to a toad sausage and another to a control sausage and compared the quolls' predatory responses when presented with a dead adult toad. Captive quolls that consumed a single toad sausage showed a reduced interest in cane toads, interacting with them for less than half the time of their untrained counterparts and showing reduced Attack behaviour. We also quantified bait uptake in the field, by both quolls and non‐target species. These field trials showed that wild quolls were the most frequent species attracted to the baits, and that approx. 61% of quolls consumed toad‐aversion baits when first encountered. Between 40% and 68% of these animals developed aversion to further bait consumption. Our results suggest that toad‐aversion sausages may be used to train wild quolls to avoid cane toads. This opens the possibility for broad‐scale quoll training with toad aversion sausages: a technique that may allow wildlife managers to prevent quoll extinctions at a landscape scale.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A trophic cascade initiated by an invasive vertebrate alters the structure of native reptile communities

Invasive vertebrates are frequently reported to have catastrophic effects on the populations of species which they directly impact. It follows then, that if invaders exert strong suppressive effects on some species then other species will indirectly benefit due to ecological release from interactions with directly impacted species. However, evidence that invasive vertebrates trigger such trophic cascades and alter community structure in terrestrial ecosystems remains rare. Here, we ask how the cane toad, a vertebrate invader that is toxic to many of Australia's vertebrate predators, influences lizard assemblages in a semi‐arid rangeland. In our study area, the density of cane toads is influenced by the availability of water accessible to toads. We compared an index of the abundance of sand goannas, a large predatory lizard that is susceptible to poisoning by cane toads and the abundances of four lizard families preyed upon by goannas (skinks, pygopods, agamid lizards and geckos) in areas where cane toads were common or rare. Consistent with the idea that suppression of sand goannas by cane toads initiates a trophic cascade, goanna activity was lower and small lizards were more abundant where toads were common. The hypothesis that suppression of sand goannas by cane toads triggers a trophic cascade was further supported by our findings that small terrestrial lizards that are frequently preyed upon by goannas were more affected by toad abundance than arboreal geckos, which are rarely consumed by goannas. Furthermore, the abundance of at least one genus of terrestrial skinks benefitted from allogenic ecosystem engineering by goannas where toads were rare. Overall, our study provides evidence that the invasion of ecosystems by non‐native species can have important effects on the structure and integrity of native communities extending beyond their often most obvious and frequently documented direct ecological effects.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Toads in the backyard: why do invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) prefer buildings to bushland?

Like many invasive species, cane toads (Rhinella marina) in Australia concentrate in the disturbed habitats created by human activity, rather than in pristine areas. We surveyed cane toads in the wet–dry tropics of the Northern Territory to assess the abundances, body sizes, sexes, behaviour, hydration state and feeding rates of toads around buildings compared to those in areas remote from buildings, and conducted experimental trials to assess the effects of building-related variables (lights and increased toad densities) on the foraging success of toads. Toads around buildings were smaller than bushland conspecifics, and adult sex-ratios were female-biased. Toads were more sedentary around buildings than in the bush, but their feeding rates (based on direct observations and faeces production post-capture) were similar. That similarity, despite twofold-higher densities of competing toads around building, reflected the strong enhancement of feeding rates due to artificial lights attracting insects (in our experimental trials, a threefold increase regardless of the number of competing toads). Toads collected from around buildings were apparently in better hydric condition. Thus, access to water also may attract toads to buildings. The relative scarcity of adult male toads around buildings likely reflects waterbody-centred reproductive activities, whereas the concentration of females and juveniles around buildings is driven largely by access to the insects attracted by artificial light. We conclude that buildings enhance the persistence of cane toad populations and may facilitate their spread.     

Vulnerability of an Australian anuran tadpole assemblage to the toxic eggs of the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus)

The invasion of cane toads (Bufo marinus) across tropical Australia has fatally poisoned many native predators; the most frequent victims may be tadpoles of native frogs, which die when they consume the toxic eggs of the toads. Field studies have documented high and species‐specific mortality of tadpoles following toad spawning. To clarify the determinants of tadpole vulnerability, we conducted 1593 laboratory trials in which single tadpoles were exposed to 10 toad eggs, either with or without an alternative food source (lettuce). At least some tadpoles within all 15 species tested consumed toad eggs. Interspecific variance in survival rates (from 0 to >70%) was driven by feeding responses not by physiological tolerance to toxins: almost all native tadpoles that consumed eggs died rapidly. Tadpole mortality was decreased by the presence of an alternative food source in four species, increased in two species, and not affected in seven species. In three of four taxa where we tested both small (early‐stage) and large (late‐stage) tadpoles, both mean survival rates and the effects of alternative food on survival shifted with tadpole body size. Trials with one species (Limnodynastes convexiusculus) showed no significant inter‐clutch variation in feeding responses or tolerance to toxins. Overall, our data show that cane toad eggs are highly toxic to native anuran tadpoles, but that whether or not a tadpole is killed by encountering toad eggs depends upon a complex interaction between the native anuran's species, its body size, and whether or not alternative food was present. In nature, larval vulnerability also depends upon the seasonal timing and location of spawning events, and habitat selection and foraging patterns of the tadpoles. Our results highlight the complexity of vulnerability determinants, and identify ecological factors (rather than physiology or feeding behaviour) as the primary determinants of cane toad impact on native tadpoles.     

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.     

Do drivers intentionally target wildlife on roads?

Despite frequent reliance on surveys to document public attitudes towards conservation issues (such as invasive‐species control), only rarely do researchers assess the validity of statements made by the public in response to such surveys. Therefore, how well responses match actual behaviour remains an open question. We conducted a survey asking drivers if they had seen and/or run over (intentionally or not) snakes, native frogs or invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) on roads in the Northern Territory of Australia. To compare actual driver behaviour to the survey responses, we also carried out field experiments where we quantified the rates at which model snakes, frogs and toads (and controls) were run over on a rural highway. Our results show a discrepancy between survey responses and driver behaviour: for example, 25% of the people we surveyed indicated that they intentionally run over cane toads, yet field experiments showed that model toads were run over no more frequently than expected by chance, or than any other type of model.     

The thermal dependency of locomotor performance evolves rapidly within an invasive species

Biological invasions can stimulate rapid shifts in organismal performance, via both plasticity and adaptation. We can distinguish between these two proximate mechanisms by rearing offspring from populations under identical conditions and measuring their locomotor abilities in standardized trials. We collected adult cane toads (Rhinella marina) from invasive populations that inhabit regions of Australia with different climatic conditions. We bred those toads and raised their offspring under common‐garden conditions before testing their locomotor performance. At high (but not low) temperatures, offspring of individuals from a hotter location (northwestern Australia) outperformed offspring of conspecifics from a cooler location (northeastern Australia). This disparity indicates that, within less than 100 years, thermal performance in cane toads has adapted to the novel abiotic challenges that cane toads have encountered during their invasion of tropical Australia.