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.     

Effects of an invasive anuran [the cane toad (Bufo marinus)] on the invertebrate fauna of a tropical Australian floodplain

The ways in which invasive organisms influence native ecosystems remain poorly understood. For example, feral cane toads Bufo marinus have spread extensively through tropical Australia over the last 70 years, but assessments of their ecological impact remain largely anecdotal. We conducted experimental trials to examine the effect of cane toad presence on invertebrate fauna in relatively small (2.4 × 1.2 m) outdoor enclosures on a floodplain near Darwin in the wet–dry tropics. Toads significantly reduced invertebrate abundance and species richness, but only to about the same degree as did an equivalent biomass of native anurans. Thus, if toads simply replaced native anurans, the offtake of invertebrates might not be substantially different from that due to native anurans before toad invasion. However, our field surveys suggest that toads cause a massive (fourfold) increase in total amphibian biomass. The end result is that cane toads act as a massive nutrient sink in the floodplain ecosystem because they consume vast numbers of invertebrates but (unlike native frogs) are largely invulnerable to predation by frog-eating predators.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

相似文献   

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

Impacts of eggs and tadpoles of the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus) on aquatic predators in tropical Australia

Invasive species affect native ecosystems in a variety of ways, and the magnitude of impact may depend upon many factors. In an invading species such as the cane toad (Bufo marinus), the multiphasic life history creates a potential for impact to differ between life history stages. Previous research on the impact of cane toads in Australia has focused on fatal poisoning of predators that ingest terrestrial stages of the toad, but aquatic stages (eggs, larvae) are toxic also. We exposed nine native Australian fish species and one native Australian turtle species to the eggs and larvae of toads. Strong species differences were evident, both in palatability (propensity to attack the egg or larva), and in subsequent responses (e.g. taste and reject the item, vs. ingest it). Toad eggs were less likely than toad tadpoles to be attacked, but also less likely to be rejected before ingestion (probably because the non‐toxic jelly coat masks the presence of toxins in the ovum). As a result, predators were far more likely to be killed by ingesting toad eggs than toad tadpoles. Fortuitously, the spatial and temporal availability of toad egg masses restricts encounter rates with predators, so that overall ecological impact may be low despite the high vulnerability of a fish or turtle that encounters such an egg mass. Understanding such ontogenetic shifts in the nature of interactions and magnitude of impact is crucial if we are to understand the overall ecological impact of invasive species.     

Quantifying Anuran Microhabitat Use to Infer the Potential for Parasite Transmission between Invasive Cane Toads and Two Species of Australian Native Frogs

Parasites that are carried by invasive species can infect native taxa, with devastating consequences. In Australia, invading cane toads (Rhinella marina) carry lungworm parasites (Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala) that (based on previous laboratory studies) can infect native treefrogs (Litoria caerulea and L. splendida). To assess the potential of parasite transmission from the invader to the native species (and from one infected native frog to another), we used surveys and radiotelemetry to quantify anuran microhabitat use, and proximity to other anurans, in two sites in tropical Australia. Unsurprisingly, treefrogs spent much of their time off the ground (especially by day, and in undisturbed forests) but terrestrial activity was common at night (especially in anthropogenically modified habitats). Microhabitat overlap between cane toads and frogs was generally low, except at night in disturbed areas, whereas overlap between the two frog species was high. The situations of highest overlap, and hence with the greatest danger of parasite transmission, involve aggregations of frogs within crevices by day, and use of open ground by all three anuran species at night. Overall, microhabitat divergence between toads and frogs should reduce, but not eliminate, the transmission of lungworms from invasive toads to vulnerable native frogs.     

Microbial biotransformation as a source of chemical diversity in cane toad steroid toxins

The cane toad is an invasive pest that is rapidly colonising northern Australia. The cane toad parotoid gland secretes cardiotoxic steroids (bufadienolides) that are poisoning native predator species. This study reveals bufadienolide diversity within the secretions of Australian cane toads is different to cane toads from overseas, being far more structurally diverse than previously assumed. It is proposed that this variation is mediated by in situ bacterial biotransformation.     

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.     

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.