Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 65, Issue 7, pp 1367–1375

Foraging tactics of an ambush predator: the effects of substrate attributes on prey availability and predator feeding success

  • Edna González-Bernal
  • Gregory P. Brown
  • Elisa Cabrera-Guzmán
  • Richard Shine
Original Paper

Abstract

The foraging sites selected by an ambush forager can strongly affect its feeding opportunities. Foraging cane toads (Rhinella marina) typically select open areas, often under artificial lights that attract insects. We conducted experimental trials in the field, using rubber mats placed under lights, to explore the influence of substrate color and rugosity on prey availability (numbers, sizes, and types of insects) and toad foraging success. A mat's color (black vs. white) and rugosity (smooth vs. rough) did not influence the numbers, sizes, or kinds of insects that were attracted to it, but toads actively preferred to feed on rugose white mats (50% of prey-capture events, vs. a null of 25%). White backgrounds provided better visual contrast of the (mostly dark) insects, and manipulations of prey color in the laboratory showed that contrast was critical in toad foraging success. Insects landing on rugose backgrounds were slower to leave, again increasing capture opportunities for toads. Thus, cane toads actively select backgrounds that maximize prey-capture opportunities, a bias driven by the ways that substrate attributes influence ease of prey detection and capture rather than by absolute prey densities.

Keywords

Foraging success Prey choice Prey selection Bufo marinus Sit-and-wait predation 

References

  1. Adams MR (2000) Choosing hunting sites: web site preferences of the orb weaver spider, Neoscona crucifera, relative to light cues. J Insect Behav 13:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aho AC, Donner K, Helenius S, Olesen Larsen L, Reuter T (1993) Visual performance of the toad (Bufo bufo) at low light levels: retinal ganglion cell responses and prey-catching accuracy. J Comp Physiol 172:671–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford RA, Brown GP, Schwarzkopf L, Phillips B, Shine R (2009) Comparisons through time and space suggest rapid evolution of dispersal behaviour in an invasive species. Wildl Res 36:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buxbaum-Conradi H, Ewert JP (1999) Responses of single neurons in the toad's caudal ventral striatum to moving visual stimuli and test of their efferent projection by extracellular antidromic stimulation/recording techniques. Brain Behav Evol 54:338–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper WE Jr, van Wyk JH, Le FN MP (1999) Incompletely protective refuges: selection and associated defences by a lizard, Cordylus cordylus (Squamata: Cordylidae). Ethology 105:687–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eskew EA, Willson JD, Winne CT (2009) Ambush site selection and ontogenetic shifts in foraging strategy in a semi-aquatic pit viper, the Eastern cottonmouth. J Zool 277:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans M, Lampo M (1996) Diet of Bufo marinus in Venezuela. J Herpetol 30:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ewert JP, Siefert G (1974) Seasonal Change of Contrast Detection in the Toad's Bufo bufo (L.) Visual System. J Comp Physiol 94:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ewert JP, Kehl W (1978) Configurational prey-selection by individual experience in the toad Bufo bufo. J Comp Physiol 126:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heads PA (1985) The effect of invertebrate and vertebrate predators on the foraging movements of Ischnura elegans larvae (Odonata: Zygoptera). Freshw Biol 15:559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heiling AM (1999) Why do nocturnal orb-web spiders (Araneidae) search for light? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinrich B, Heinrich MJE (1984) The pit-trapping foraging strategy of the antlion, Myrmeleon immaculatus DeGeer (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 14:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hopcraft J, Grant C, Sinclair ARE, Packer C (2005) Planning for success: Serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. J Anim Ecol 74:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huey RB, Pianka ER (1981) Ecological consequences of foraging mode. Ecology 62:991–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inoue T, Matsura T (1983) Foraging strategy of a mantid, Paratenodera angustipennis S.: mechanisms of switching tactics between ambush and active search. Oecologia 56:264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kotler BP (1997) Patch use by gerbils in a risky environment: manipulating food and safety to test four models. Oikos 78:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hasson O (1991) Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 72:2249–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lever C (2001) The cane toad. The history and ecology of a successful colonist. Westbury Academic Publishing, Otley, West YorkshireGoogle Scholar
  19. Li D, Jackson RR, Lim MLM (2003) Influence of background and prey orientation on an ambushing predator's decisions. Behaviour 140:739–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Megan DG, Fernández-Juricic E (2009) Effects of physical and visual access to prey on patch selection and food search effort in a sit-and-wait predator, the black phoebe. Condor 111:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe NB, Valdimarsson SK, Fraser NHC (1997) Habitat profitability and choice in a sit-and-wait predator: juvenile salmon prefer slower currents on darker nights. J Anim Ecol 66:866–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pramuk JB, Robertson T, Sites JW Jr, Noonan BP (2008) Around the world in 10 million years: biogeography of the nearly cosmopolitan true toads (Anura: Bufonidae). Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:72–83Google Scholar
  26. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robins A, Rogers LJ (2004) Lateralized prey catching responses in the toad (Bufo marinus): Analysis of complex visual stimuli. Anim Behav 68:567–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SAS (2002) JMP 5.0.1 software. SAS Institute, Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  30. Scharf I, Ovadia O (2006) Factors influencing site abandonment and site selection in a sit-and-wait predator: a review of pit-building antlion larvae. J Insect Behav 19:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searle KR, Stokes CJ, Gordon IJ (2008) When foraging and fear meet: using foraging hierarchies to inform assessments of landscapes of fear. Behav Ecol 19:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shafir S, Roughgarden J (1998) Testing predictions of foraging theory for a sit-and-wait forager, Anolis gingivinus. Behav Ecol 9:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shine R (2010) The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Q Rev Biol 85:253–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shine R, Sun L (2002) Arboreal ambush site selection by pit-vipers Gloydius shedaoensis. Anim Behav 63:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sih A, McCarthy TM (2002) Prey responses to pulses of risk and safety: testing the risk allocation hypothesis. Anim Behav 63:437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strüssmann C, Ribeiro Do Vale MB, Meneghini MH, Magnusson WE (1984) Diet and foraging mode of Bufo marinus and Leptodactylus ocellatus. J Herpetol 18:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Théry M, Casas J (2002) Predator and prey views of spider camouflage. Nature 415:133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Urban MC, Phillips BL, Skelly DK, Shine R (2008) A toad more travelled: the heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am Nat 171:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valeix M, Fritz H, Loveridge AJ, Davidson Z, Hunt JE, Murindagomo F, Macdonald DW (2009) Does the risk of encountering lions influence African herbivore behaviour at waterholes? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1483–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Webb JK, Shine R (1998a) Ecological characteristics of a threatened snake species, Hoplocephalus bungaroides (Serpentes, Elapidae). Anim Conserv 1:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Webb JK, Shine R (1998b) Thermoregulation by a nocturnal elapid snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides) in south-eastern Australia. Physiol Zool 71:680–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webster MM, Hart PJB (2004) Substrate discrimination and preference in foraging fish. Anim Behav 68:1071–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zug GR, Zug PB (1979) The marine toad, Bufo marinus: a natural history resumé of native populations. Smithson Contrib Zool 284:1–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edna González-Bernal
    • 1
  • Gregory P. Brown
    • 1
  • Elisa Cabrera-Guzmán
    • 1
  • Richard Shine
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences A08University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations