Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:57:30.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Habitat use of the introduced cane toad (Rhinella marina) and native frog species in tropical Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2015

Martin Mayer ,
Gregory P. Brown ,
Barbara Zimmermann ,
Matthew J. Greenlees  and
Richard Shine
Martin Mayer*
Affiliation:
Hedmark University College, Faculty of Forestry and Wildlife Management, N-2480 Koppang, Norway
Gregory P. Brown
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Barbara Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Hedmark University College, Faculty of Forestry and Wildlife Management, N-2480 Koppang, Norway
Matthew J. Greenlees
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Richard Shine
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
*
1 Corresponding author. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Environmental and Health Studies, Telemark University College, N-3800 Bø in Telemark, Norway. Email: martin.mayer@hit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The ecological impacts of introduced species can reveal mechanisms underlying habitat selection and behaviour. We investigated the habitat use of native frog species and the invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in tropical northern Australia to measure overlap in habitat use, and to test if the presence of the cane toad influences frog behaviour. Native frog species and the cane toad both preferred habitats close to water and unvegetated holes. However, native frogs were found further from water (on average 19.4 m) than were toads (on average 12.6 m), and preferred areas with higher vegetation (8–50 cm) than did toads, which were more abundant in vegetation lower than 8 cm. For both types of anuran, the next neighbour was more often of the same type (89% in frogs, 52% in toads) than expected by chance (observed ratio: 75% frogs vs 25% toads), reflecting these differences in habitat use. Our counts of frog abundance increased on average 14.5% in areas from which we removed cane toads temporarily. This result suggests that cane toads inhibit the activity of native anurans either by inducing avoidance, or by reducing activity. By modifying the behaviour and spatial distribution of native taxa, invasive cane toads may curtail activities such as feeding and breeding.

Keywords

anuransAustraliabehaviourinterference competitioninvasive speciesRhinella marina
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , November 2015 , pp. 531 - 540
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

BLEACH, I., BECKMANN, C., BROWN, G. P. & SHINE, R. 2013. Effects of an invasive species on refuge-site selection by native fauna: the impact of cane toads on native frogs in the Australian tropics. Austral Ecology 39:50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLEACH, I. T., BECKMANN, C., BOTH, C., BROWN, G. P. & SHINE, R. 2015. Noisy neighbours at the frog pond: effects of invasive cane toads on the calling behaviour of native Australian frogs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69:675–683.Google Scholar
BOLAND, C. 2004. Introduced cane toads Bufo marinus are active nest predators and competitors of rainbow bee-eaters Merops ornatus: observational and experimental evidence. Biological Conservation 120:53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BROWN, G. P., UJVARI, B., MADSEN, T., SHINE, R. & HARWOOD, J. 2013. Invader impact clarifies the roles of top-down and bottom-up effects on tropical snake populations. Functional Ecology 27:351–361.Google Scholar
CABRERA-GUZMÁN, E., CROSSLAND, M. R. & SHINE, R. 2012. Predation on the eggs and larvae of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) by native aquatic invertebrates in tropical Australia. Biological Conservation 153:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARROLL, S. P., DINGLE, H. & KLASSEN, S. P. 1997. Genetic differentiation of fitness-associated traits among rapidly evolving populations of the soapberry bug. Evolution 51:1182–1188.Google Scholar
CREEL, S., WINNIE, J., MAXWELL, B., HAMLIN, K. & CREEL, M. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387–3397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CROSSLAND, M. R., BROWN, G. P., ANSTIS, M., SHILTON, C. M. & SHINE, R. 2008. Mass mortality of native anuran tadpoles in tropical Australia due to the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus). Biological Conservation 141:2387–2394.Google Scholar
CROSSLAND, M. R., ALFORD, R. A. & SHINE, R. 2009. Impact of the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus) on an Australian frog (Opisthodon ornatus) depends on minor variation in reproductive timing. Oecologia 158:625–632.Google Scholar
FREELAND, W. 1986. Populations of cane toad, Bufo marinus, in relation to time since colonization. Wildlife Research 13:321–329.Google Scholar
FREELAND, W. J. & KERIN, S. H. 1988. Within-habitat relationships between invading Bufo marinus and Australian species of frog during the tropical dry season. Wildlife Research 15:293–305.Google Scholar
GIBBONS, J. W., SCOTT, D. E., RYAN, T. J., BUHLMANN, K. A., TUBERVILLE, T. D., METTS, B. S., GREENE, J. L., MILLS, T., LEIDEN, Y. & POPPY, S. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience 50:653–666.Google Scholar
GONZÁLEZ-BERNAL, E., BROWN, G. P., CABRERA-GUZMÁN, E. & SHINE, R. 2011. Foraging tactics of an ambush predator: the effects of substrate attributes on prey availability and predator feeding success. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:1367–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GREENLEES, M. J., BROWN, G. P., WEBB, J. K., PHILLIPS, B. L. & SHINE, R. 2006. Effects of an invasive anuran [the cane toad (Bufo marinus)] on the invertebrate fauna of a tropical Australian floodplain. Animal Conservation 9:431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GREENLEES, M. J., BROWN, G. P., WEBB, J. K., PHILLIPS, B. L. & SHINE, R. 2007. Do invasive cane toads (Chaunus marinus) compete with Australian frogs (Cyclorana australis)? Austral Ecology 32:900–907.Google Scholar
GREENLEES, M. J., PHILLIPS, B. L. & SHINE, R. 2010a. An invasive species imposes selection on life-history traits of a native frog. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 100:329–336.Google Scholar
GREENLEES, M. J., PHILLIPS, B. L. & SHINE, R. 2010b. Adjusting to a toxic invader: native Australian frogs learn not to prey on cane toads. Behavioral Ecology 21:966–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAGMAN, M. & SHINE, R. 2006. Spawning site selection by feral cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Austral Ecology 31:551–558.Google Scholar
HUMAN, K. G. & GORDON, D. M. 1996. Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105:405–412.Google Scholar
JAEGER, R. G. 1976. A possible prey-call window in anuran auditory perception. Copeia 1976:833–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LANGKILDE, T., LANCE, V. A. & SHINE, R. 2005. Ecological consequences of agonistic interactions in lizards. Ecology 86:1650–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEVER, C. 2001. The cane toad: the history and ecology of a successful colonist. Westbury Academic and Scientific Publishing, Westbury. 289 pp.Google Scholar
LLEWELYN, J., SCHWARZKOPF, L., ALFORD, R. & SHINE, R. 2010. Something different for dinner? Responses of a native Australian predator (the keelback snake) to an invasive prey species (the cane toad). Biological Invasions 12:1045–1051.Google Scholar
LLEWELYN, J., PHILLIPS, B. L., BROWN, G. P., SCHWARZKOPF, L., ALFORD, R. A. & SHINE, R. 2011. Adaptation or preadaptation: why are keelback snakes (Tropidonophis mairii) less vulnerable to invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) than are other Australian snakes? Evolutionary Ecology 25:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LOSOS, J. B., MARKS, J. C. & SCHOENER, T. W. 1993. Habitat use and ecological interactions of an introduced and a native species of Anolis lizard on Grand Cayman, with a review of the outcomes of anole introductions. Oecologia 95:525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LU, G. Y. & WONG, D. W. 2008. An adaptive inverse-distance weighting spatial interpolation technique. Computers & Geosciences 34:1044–1055.Google Scholar
MACK, R. N., SIMBERLOFF, D., MARK LONSDALE, W., EVANS, H., CLOUT, M. & BAZZAZ, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710.Google Scholar
MAERZ, J. C., BLOSSEY, B. & NUZZO, V. 2005. Green frogs show reduced foraging success in habitats invaded by Japanese knotweed. Biodiversity & Conservation 14:2901–2911.Google Scholar
MURRAY, B. R. & HOSE, G. C. 2005. Life-history and ecological correlates of decline and extinction in the endemic Australian frog fauna. Austral Ecology 30:564–571.Google Scholar
NARAYAN, E. J., COCKREM, J. F. & HERO, J.-M. 2013. Sight of a predator induces a corticosterone stress response and generates fear in an amphibian. PLoS ONE 8:e73564.Google Scholar
NELSON, D. W., CROSSLAND, M. R. & SHINE, R. 2011. Foraging responses of predators to novel toxic prey: effects of predator learning and relative prey abundance. Oikos 120:152–158.Google Scholar
PETERS, W., HEBBLEWHITE, M., DECESARE, N., CAGNACCI, F. & MUSIANI, M. 2013. Resource separation analysis with moose indicates threats to caribou in human altered landscapes. Ecography 36:487–498.Google Scholar
PIZZATTO, L. & SHINE, R. 2008. The behavioral ecology of cannibalism in cane toads (Bufo marinus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63:123–133.Google Scholar
PIZZATTO, L. & SHINE, R. 2009. Native Australian frogs avoid the scent of invasive cane toads. Austral Ecology 34:77–82.Google Scholar
RODRÍGUEZ-PRIETO, I. & FERNÁNDEZ-JURICIC, E. 2005. Effects of direct human disturbance on the endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels. Biological Conservation 123:1–9.Google Scholar
SEEBACHER, F. & ALFORD, R. A. 2002. Shelter microhabitats determine body temperature and dehydration rates of a terrestrial amphibian (Bufo marinus). Journal of Herpetology 36:69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEMENIUK, M., LEMCKERT, F. & SHINE, R. 2007. Breeding-site selection by cane toads (Bufo marinus) and native frogs in northern New South Wales, Australia. Wildlife Research 34:59–66.Google Scholar
SHINE, R. 2010. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Quarterly Review of Biology 85:253–291.Google Scholar
SHINE, R. 2013. A review of ecological interactions between native frogs and invasive cane toads in Australia. Austral Ecology 39:1–16.Google Scholar
SHINE, R. & BROWN, G. P. 2008. Adapting to the unpredictable: reproductive biology of vertebrates in the Australian wet–dry tropics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:363–373.Google Scholar
SIDOROVICH, V. & MACDONALD, D. W. 2001. Density dynamics and changes in habitat use by the European mink and other native mustelids in connection with the American mink expansion in Belarus. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 51:107–126.Google Scholar
URBAN, M. C., PHILLIPS, B. L., SKELLY, D. K. & SHINE, R. 2007. The cane toad's (Chaunus [Bufo] marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:1413–1419.Google Scholar
WAGENMAKERS, E.-J. & FARRELL, S. 2004. AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11:192–196.Google Scholar
WERNER, E. E. & ANHOLT, B. R. 1993. Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. American Naturalist 142:242–272.Google Scholar
WILLIAMSON, M. 1999. Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12.Google Scholar
YOUNG, J. E., CHRISTIAN, K. A., DONNELLAN, S., TRACY, C. R. & PARRY, D. 2005. Comparative analysis of cutaneous evaporative water loss in frogs demonstrates correlation with ecological habits. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78:847–856.Google Scholar
ZUG, G. R. & ZUG, P. B. 1979. The marine toad, Bufo marinus: a natural history resume of native populations. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 284:1–58.Google Scholar
ZUUR, A. F., IENO, E. N. & ELPHICK, C. S. 2010. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:3–14.Google Scholar