Species-specific communication systems in an introduced toad compared with native frogs in Australia

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 724-728

  Hagman, Mattias ^a,b   Shine, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Chaunus marinus; Conservation; Invasive species; Pheromone; Rhinella marina

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; CHEMICAL CUE; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; FROG; INTRODUCED SPECIES; LABORATORY METHOD; METAMORPHOSIS; NATIVE SPECIES; PHEROMONE; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIGNALING; TOAD;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA;

ANURA; BUFO MARINUS; CYCLORANA AUSTRALIS; LIMNODYNASTES CONVEXIUSCULUS; LITORIA CAERULEA; MYOBATRACHIDAE; RUBELLA;

EID: 70349162923     PISSN: 10527613     EISSN: 10990755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1045     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Beroza M, Knipling EF. 1972. Gypsy moth control with sexual attractant pheromone. Science 177: 19-27.
2. Burnett S. 1997. Colonising cane toads cause population declines in native predators: reliable anecdotal information and management implications. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 65-72.
3. Cogger HG. 1992. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, 4th edn. Reed Books: Sydney.
4. Crossland MR, Alford RA. 1998. Evaluation of the toxicity of eggs, hatchlings and tadpoles of the introduced toad Bufo marinus (Anura, Bufonidae) to native Australian aquatic predators. Australian Journal of Ecology 23: 129-137.
5. Frost DR, Grant T, Faivovich J, Bain RH, Haas A, Haddad CFB, De Sa RO, Channing A, Wilkinson M, Donnellan SC et al. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1-370.
6. Gosner KL. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
7. Hagman M. 2007. Can understanding life-history traits serve as a basis for control of invasive species? A case study of the cane toad in Australia. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
8. Hagman M, Shine R. 2008a. Understanding the toad code: behavioural responses of cane toad (Chaunus marinus) larvae and metamorphs to chemical cues. Austral Ecology 33: 37-44.
9. Hagman M, Shine R. 2008b. Australian tadpoles do not avoid chemical cues from invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus). Wildlife Research 35A: 59-64.
10. Hagman M, Hayes R, Capon RJ, Shine R. 2009. Alarm cues experienced by cane toad tadpoles affect post-metamorphic chemical defences. Functional Ecology 23: 126-132.
11. Hengeveld R. 1989. Dynamics of Biological Invasions. Chapman and Hall: New York.
12. Hews DK. 1988. Alarm response in larval western toads, Bufo boreas: release of larval chemicals by a natural predator and its effect on predator capture efficiency. Animal Behaviour 36: 125-133.
13. Hews DK, Blaustein AR. 1985. An investigation of the alarm response in Bufo boreas and Rana cascadae. Behavioral and Neural Biology 43: 47-57.
14. Hrbacek I. 1950. On the flight reaction of tadpoles of the common toad caused by chemical substances. Experientia 6: 100-101.
15. Lever C. 2001. The Cane Toad. The History and Ecology of a Successful Colonist. Westbury Academic Publishing: Otley, West Yorkshire.
16. Newsome AE, Noble IR. 1986. Ecological and physical characteristics of invading species. In Ecology of Biological Invasions. An Australian Perspective, Groves RH, Burdon JJ (eds). Australian Academy of Sciences: Canberra; 1-20.
17. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Karieva PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyel PB, Byers JE, Goldwasser L. 1999. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1: 3-19.
18. Pelozuelo L, Frerot B. 2006. Behaviour of male European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner (Lep.: Crambidae) towards pheromone-baited delta traps, buckets and wire mesh cone traps. Journal of Applied Entomology 130: 230-237.
19. Phillips BL, Brown GP, Shine R. 2003. Assessing the potential impact of cane toads on Australian snakes. Conservation Biology 17: 1738-1747.
20. Pramuk JB. 2006. Phylogeny of South American Bufo (Anura: Bufonidae) inferred from combined evidence. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 146: 407-452.
21. Rajchard J. 2006. Antipredator pheromones in amphibians: a review. Veterinarni Medicina 51: 409-413.
22. Shine R, Brown GP. 2008. Adapting to the unpredictable: reproductive biology of vertebrates in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Invited review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363: 363-373.
23. Spieler M, Linsenmair KE. 1999. Aggregation behaviour of Bufo maculatus as an antipredator mechanism. Ethology 105: 665-686.
24. Summey MR, Mathis A. 1998. Alarm responses to chemical stimuli from damaged conspecifics by larval anurans: tests of three neotropical species. Herpetologica 54: 402-408.
25. Urban M, Phillips BL, Skelly DK, Shine R. 2007. The cane toad's (Chaunus marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 274: 1413-1419.
26. Wassersug RJ. 1997. Assessing and controlling amphibian populations from the larval perspective. In Amphibians in Decline. Canadian Studies of a Global Problem. Herpetological Conservation No. 1, Green DM (ed.). Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles: Saint Louis, MO; 271-281.