Foraging responses of predators to novel toxic prey: Effects of predator learning and relative prey abundance

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 152-158

  Nelson, David W M ^a   Crossland, Michael R ^a   Shine, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIET; FROG; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; LEARNING; NATIVE SPECIES; PERCIFORM; PREDATOR; PREY CAPTURE; RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; SURVIVAL; TEMPORAL VARIATION; TOAD; TOXIC ORGANISM; TROPICAL REGION;

AUSTRALIA;

ANURA; BUFO MARINUS; GOBIO; LITORIA CAERULEA; LITORIA DAHLII; MOGURNDA MOGURNDA; RUBELLA; SALMONIDAE;

EID: 77957992566     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18736.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Allen G. R. et al. 2002. Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. - Western Australian Museum.
2. Barker J. et al. 1995. A field guide to Australian frogs. - Surrey Beatty and Sons.
3. Brown G. P. and Shine R. 2007. Rain, prey and predators: climatically driven shifts in frog abundance modify reproductive allometry in a tropical snake. Oecologia 154: 361-368.
4. Buchholz R. 2007. Behavioural biology: an effective and relevant conservation tool. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 401-407.
5. Burnett S. 1997. Colonizing cane toads cause population declines in native predators: reliable anecdotal information and management implications. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 3: 65-72.
6. Covacevich J. and Archer M. 1975. The distribution of the cane toad Bufo marinus in Australia and its effects on indigenous vertebrates. Mem. Qld. Mus. 17: 305-310.
7. Crossland M. R. 2001. Ability of predatory native Australian fishes to learn to avoid toxic larvae of the introduced toad Bufo marinus. J. Fish Biol. 59: 319-329.
8. Curio E. 1996. Conservation needs ethology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 260-263.
9. Daly J. W. et al. 1987. Further classification of skin alkaloids from Neotropical frogs (Dendrobatidae) with a general survey of toxic/noxious substances in the Amphibia. Toxicon 25: 1023-1095.
10. Doody J. S. et al. 2006. Indirect impacts of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) on nest predation in pig-nosed turtles (Carettochelys insculpta). Wildlife Res. 33: 349-354.
11. Else P. L. 1994. Plasma potassium may protect sodium pumps of toad hearts from an endogenous inhibitor. Am. J. Physiol. 267:R754-R761.
12. Elton C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. - Methuen.
13. Gosner K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
14. Griffiths A. D. and McKay J. L. 2007. Cane toads reduce the abundance and site occupancy of Merten's water monitor (Varanus mertensi). Wildlife Res. 34: 609-615.
15. Letnic M. et al. 2008. Invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) cause mass mortality of freshwater crocodiles (Crocodylus johnstoni) in tropical Australia. Biol. Conserv. 141: 1773-1782.
16. Lindström L. et al. 2004. The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Müllerian mimicries. Evolution 58: 1294-1302.
17. Mack R. N. et al. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl. 10: 689-710.
18. McIntosh A. R. and Townsend C. R. 1996. Interactions between fish, grazing invertebrates and algae in a New Zealand stream: a trophic cascade mediated by fish-induced changes to grazer behaviour? Oecologia 108: 174-181.
19. Nelson D. W. M. 2008. Bufo for breakfast: how cane toads affect native predators and their prey. BSc Honours thesis. - School of Biological Sciences, Univ. of Sydney.
20. Nelson D. et al. 2010. Indirect ecological impacts of an invasive toad on predator-prey interactions among native species. Biol. Invas. doi: 10.1007/s10530-010-9729-4
21. Oakwood M. 2004. Case of the disappearing spots. Nature Aust. 20: 26-35.
22. Phillips B. L. and Shine R. 2006. An invasive species induces rapid adaptive change in a native predator: cane toads and black snakes in Australia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273: 1545-1550.
23. Pimentel D. et al. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50: 53-65.
24. Pramuk J. B. 2006. Phylogeny of South American Bufo (Anura: Bufonidae) inferred from combined evidence. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 146: 407-452.
25. Shine R. and Brown G. P. 2008. Adapting to the unpredictable: reproductive biology of vertebrates in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363: 363-373.
26. Shine R. and Covacevich J. 1983. Ecology of highly venomous snakes: the Australian genus Oxyuranus (Elapidae). J. Herpetol. 17: 60-69.
27. Tordoff M. G. and Bachmanov A. A. 2003. Mouse taste preference tests: why only two bottles? Chem. Senses 28: 315-324.
28. Townsend C. R. 1996. Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo trutta in New Zealand. Biol. Conserv. 78: 13-22.
29. Tyler M. J. 1994. Australian frogs. A natural history. - Reed Books.
30. Underwood A. J. 1997. Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
31. Urban M. C. et al. 2007. The cane toad's (Chaunus [Bufo] marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274: 1413-1419.
32. Urban M. C. et al. 2008. A toad more traveled: the heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am. Nat. 171:E134-E148.
33. Webb J. K. et al. 2008. A native dasyurid predator (common planigale, Planigale maculata) rapidly learns to avoid a toxic invader. Austral Ecol. 33: 821-829.
34. White E. M. et al. 2006. Biotic indirect effects: a neglected concept in invasion biology. Div. Distr. 12: 443-455.
35. Williamson I. 1999. Competition between the larvae of the introduced cane toad Bufo marinus (Anura: Bufonidae) and native anurans from the Darling Downs area of southern Queensland. Austral Ecol. 24: 636-643.
36. Wootton J. T. 1994. The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 443-466.
37. Zavaleta E. S. et al. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 454-459.