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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus) on an Australian frog (Opisthodon ornatus) depends on minor variation in reproductive timing

Invasive species are widely viewed as unmitigated ecological catastrophes, but the reality is more complex. Theoretically, invasive species could have negligible or even positive effects if they sufficiently reduce the intensity of processes regulating native populations. Understanding such mechanisms is crucial to predicting ultimate ecological impacts. We used a mesocosm experiment to quantify the impact of eggs and larvae of the introduced cane toad (Bufo marinus) on fitness-related traits (number, size and time of emergence of metamorphs) of a native Australian frog species (Opisthodon ornatus). The results depended upon the timing of oviposition of the two taxa, and hence the life-history stages that came into contact. Growth and survival of O. ornatus tadpoles were enhanced when they preceded B. marinus tadpoles into ponds, and reduced when they followed B. marinus tadpoles into ponds, relative to when tadpoles of both species were added to ponds simultaneously. The dominant tadpole-tadpole interaction is competition, and the results are consistent with competitive priority effects. However, these priority effects were reduced or reversed when O. ornatus tadpoles encountered B. marinus eggs. Predation on toxic toad eggs reduced the survival of O. ornatus and B. marinus. The consequent reduction in tadpole densities allowed the remaining O. ornatus tadpoles to grow more rapidly and to metamorphose at larger body sizes (>60% disparity in mean mass). Thus, exposure to B. marinus eggs reduced the number of O. ornatus metamorphs, but increased their body sizes. If the increased size at metamorphosis more than compensates for the reduced survival, the effective reproductive output of native anurans may be increased rather than decreased by the invasive toad. Minor interspecific differences in the seasonal timing of oviposition thus have the potential to massively alter the impact of invasive cane toads on native anurans.     

Foraging Responses of the Larvae of Invasive Bullfrogs(Lithobates catesbeianus): Possible Implications for Bullfrog Control and Ecological Impact in China

The predatory behavior of invasive species can affect their ecological impact, and offer opportunities for targeted control. In Australia, tadpoles of invasive cane toads(Rhinella marina) do not consume eggs of native anurans, but are strongly attracted to(and consume) newly-laid eggs of conspecifics; chemical cues from such eggs(or adult secretions) thus can be used to attract toad tadpoles to traps. Do other invasive anurans show similar selectivity? Our laboratory trials on a Chinese population of invasive American bullfrogs(Lithobates catesbeianus) revealed similar behaviors as exhibited by Australian cane toads. Bullfrog tadpoles rarely consumed the eggs of native anurans, but were attracted to both bullfrog eggs and bullfrog skin secretions. Although the attraction response was less intense in bullfrogs than in cane toads, it might nonetheless enable selective removal of bullfrog tadpoles from invaded sites.     

Cues for cannibalism: cane toad tadpoles use chemical signals to locate and consume conspecific eggs

Although animals of many species kill and consume conspecifics, most such cases probably involve serendipitous encounters between the individuals concerned. In some taxa, however, cannibalism is an active process, with predatory individuals searching out and consuming specific types of conspecific prey items. Although anuran tadpoles often have been reported to consume conspecific eggs, this behaviour has been interpreted as a by‐product of usual foraging behaviours rather than a result of targeted searching. Our field and laboratory studies in tropical Australia show that the tadpoles of invasive cane toads Bufo marinus are strongly attracted to chemical cues from conspecific eggs; the effective cues are released late in embryonic development, as the jelly coat breaks down. Tadpoles of native Australian frog species were attracted to the eggs of toads only rarely. If deployed as bait in traps, chemical cues from toad eggs could provide a way to selectively remove toad larvae from waterbodies.     

Choosy cannibals: Targeted consumption of conspecific hatchlings by larval cane toads is triggered by species‐specific defensive toxins

In many species, cannibalism is uncommon and involves nonselective consumption of conspecifics as well as heterospecifics. However, within their invasive Australian range, cane toad larvae (Rhinella marina) specifically target and voraciously consume the eggs and hatchlings of conspecifics, often extirpating entire clutches. In contrast, toad larvae rarely consume the eggs and hatchlings of native frogs. Here, we use laboratory studies to demonstrate that this selective consumption is triggered by species‐specific chemical cues: maternally‐invested bufadienolide toxins that otherwise defend cane toad eggs and hatchlings against predators. We find that these cues stimulate feeding behaviors in toad tadpoles, such that the addition of bufadienolide toxins to the water column increases predation on eggs, not only of conspecifics, but also of native anuran species that are otherwise usually ignored. In contrast, we find that cannibalism rates on conspecific hatchlings are high and unaffected by the addition of bufadienolide cues. The maternally‐invested toxins present in conspecific eggs may therefore be more easily detected post‐hatching, at which point tadpole feeding behaviors are induced whether or not additional toxin cues are present. As bufadienolide cues have previously been found to attract toad tadpoles to vulnerable hatchlings, our present findings demonstrate that the same toxin cues that attract cannibalistic tadpoles also induce them to feed, thereby facilitating cannibalism through multiple behavioral effects. Because native fauna do not produce bufadienolide toxins, the species specificity of these chemical cues in the Australian landscape may have facilitated the evolution of targeted (species‐specific) cannibalism in invasive cane toad populations. Thus, these bufadienolide toxins confer cost (increased vulnerability to cannibalism in early life‐stages) as well as benefit (reduced vulnerability to predation by other taxa).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The enduring toxicity of road-killed cane toads (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Rhinella marina</Emphasis>)

The primary ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in Australia is mediated by their powerful toxins, which are fatal to many native species. Toads use roads as invasion corridors and feeding sites, resulting in frequent road-kills. The flattened, desiccated toad carcasses remain highly toxic despite being heated daily to >40°C for many months during the tropical dry-season. In controlled laboratory experiments, native tadpoles (Cyclorana australis, Litoria rothii), fishes (Mogurnda mogurnda) and leeches (Family Erpobdellidae) died rapidly when we added fragments of sun-dried toad to their water, even if the native animals had no physical access to the carcass. Given the opportunity, native tadpoles and fishes strongly avoided the vicinity of dried toad fragments. Hence, long-dead toads may contaminate roadside ponds formed by early wet-season rains and induce avoidance and/or mortality of native anuran larvae, fishes and invertebrates. Our studies show that the toxicity of this invasive species does not end with the toad’s death, and that methods for disposing of toad carcasses (e.g., after culling operations) need to recognize the persistent danger posed by those carcasses.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.