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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

A 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.     

Behavioural responses of carnivorous marsupials (Planigale maculata) to toxic invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus)

The arrival of a toxic invasive species may impose selection on local predators to avoid consuming it. Feeding responses may be modified via evolutionary changes to behaviour, or via phenotypic plasticity (e.g. learning, taste aversion). The recent arrival of cane toads (Bufo marinus) in the Northern Territory of Australia induced rapid aversion learning in a predatory marsupial (the common planigale, Planigale maculata). Here, we examine the responses of planigales to cane toads in north‐eastern Queensland, where they have been sympatric for over 60 years, to investigate whether planigale responses to cane toads have been modified by long‐term exposure. Responses to toads were broadly similar to those documented for toad‐naïve predators. Most Queensland planigales seized (21 of 22) and partially consumed (11 of 22) the first toad they were offered, but were likely to ignore toads in subsequent trials. However, unlike their toad‐naïve conspecifics from the Northern Territory, the Queensland planigales all survived ingestion of toad tissue without overt ill effects and continued to attack toads in a substantial proportion of subsequent trials. Our data suggest that (i) learning by these small predators is sufficiently rapid and effective that selection on behaviour has been weak; and (ii) physiological tolerance to toad toxins may be higher in planigales after 60 years (approximately 60 generations) of exposure to this toxic prey.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

The Interacting Effects of Ungulate Hoofprints and Predatory Native Ants on Metamorph Cane Toads in Tropical Australia

Many invasive species exploit the disturbed habitats created by human activities. Understanding the effects of habitat disturbance on invasion success, and how disturbance interacts with other factors (such as biotic resistance to the invaders from the native fauna) may suggest new ways to reduce invader viability. In tropical Australia, commercial livestock production can facilitate invasion by the cane toad (Rhinella marina), because hoofprints left by cattle and horses around waterbody margins provide distinctive (cool, moist) microhabitats; nevertheless the same microhabitat can inhibit the success of cane toads by increasing the risks of predation or drowning. Metamorph cane toads actively select hoofprints as retreat-sites to escape dangerous thermal and hydric conditions in the surrounding landscape. However, hoofprint geometry is important: in hoofprints with steep sides the young toads are more likely to be attacked by predatory ants (Iridomyrmex reburrus) and are more likely to drown following heavy rain. Thus, anthropogenic changes to the landscape interact with predation by native taxa to affect the ability of cane toads in this vulnerable life-history stage to thrive in the harsh abiotic conditions of tropical Australia.     

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.     

Spawning site selection by feral cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia

Abstract Spawning sites are a critical and often scarce resource for aquatic‐breeding amphibians, including invasive species such as the cane toad (Bufo marinus). If toads select spawning sites based on habitat characteristics, we can potentially manipulate those characteristics to either enhance or reduce their suitability as breeding sites. We surveyed 25 spawning sites used by cane toads, and 25 adjacent unused sites, in an area of tropical Australia recently invaded by these feral anurans. Water chemistry (pH, conductivity, salinity, turbidity) was virtually identical between the two sets of waterbodies, but habitat characteristics were very different. Toads selectively oviposited in shallow pools with gradual rather than steep slopes, and with open (unvegetated) gradually sloping muddy banks. They avoided flowing water, and pools with steep surrounds. In these respects, cane toads broadly resemble previously studied toad species in other parts of the world, as well as conspecifics within their natural range in South America.     

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.     

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.     

Wildfires modify the parasite loads of invasive cane toads

The frequency and severity of wildfires are increasing due to anthropogenic modifications to habitats and to climate. Post-fire landscapes may advantage invasive species via multiple mechanisms, including changes to host–parasite interactions. We surveyed the incidence of endoparasitic lungworms (Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala) in invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in near-coastal sites of eastern Australia, a year after extensive fires in this region. Both the prevalence of infection and number of worms in infected toads increased with toad body size in unburned areas. By contrast, parasite load decreased with toad body size in burned areas. By killing moisture-dependent free-living lungworm larvae, the intense fires may have liberated adult cane toads from a parasite that can substantially reduce the viability of its host. Smaller toads, which are restricted to moist environments, did not receive this benefit from fires.     

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.     

Sex and age differences in habitat use by invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) and a native anuran (Cyclorana australis) in the Australian wet–dry tropics

Although generalized habitat use may contribute to the success of invasive taxa, even species that are typically described as habitat generalists exhibit non‐random patterns of habitat use. We measured abiotic and biotic factors in 42 plots (each 100 × 10 m) along a 4.2‐km long unpaved road in tropical Australia, at a site that had been invaded by cane toads (Rhinella marina Bufonidae) seven years previously. We also counted anurans at night in each of these plots on 103 nights during the tropical wet season, over a five‐year period, beginning soon after the initial toad invasion. Spatial distributions differed significantly among adult male toads (n = 1047), adult female toads (n = 1222), juvenile toads (n = 342) and native frogs (Cyclorana australis Hylidae, n = 234). Adult male toads were closely associated with water bodies used as calling and/or spawning sites, whereas adult female toads and native frogs were most commonly encountered in drier forested areas on sloping ground. Juvenile toads used the margins of the floodplain more than conspecific adults did, but the floodplain itself was rarely used. Understanding which components of the habitat are most important to specific age and sex classes within a population, or how invasive species differ from native species in this respect, can clarify issues such as the spatial and temporal location of ecological impact by an invader, and the most effective places for control of the invader with minimal collateral effects on the native biota.     

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.     

Introduced animals and their parasites: The cane toad,Bufo marinus,in Australia

Abstract The impact of introducing animals into an established ecosystem can be directly observed through predator-prey and competition interactions. The impact of animals via more obscure relationships, such as the host-parasite relationship, are generally not considered. The cane toad Bufo marinus (Linnaeus) was introduced to Australia in 1935. Despite intensive research into many aspects of the biology of the toad, there has been no systematic survey of the parasite fauna of B. marinus in Australia. It is unknown exactly what parasites the toad may have introduced to Australia and also the range of parasites that may have adapted to the toad from native fauna since its introduction. The provisional conclusion from this review is that all the helminth parasites so far recorded from B. marmus in Australia have been acquired from local hosts. The interaction of toads and nativa fauna via their parasites remains unknown.