Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 4, pp 675–683 | Cite as

Noisy neighbours at the frog pond: effects of invasive cane toads on the calling behaviour of native Australian frogs

  • Iris T. Bleach
  • Christa Beckmann
  • Camila Both
  • Gregory P. Brown
  • Richard Shine
Original Paper

Abstract

Invasive species can disrupt the communication systems that native biota use for reproductive interactions. In tropical Australia, invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) breed in many of the same waterbodies that are used by native frogs, and males of both the invader and the native taxa rely on vocal signals to attract mates. We conducted playback experiments to test the hypothesis that calls of toads may influence the calling behaviour of frogs (Limnodynastes convexiusculus and Litoria rothii). Male L. convexiusculus adjusted their calling rate and the variance in inter-call interval in response to a variety of sounds, including the calls of cane toads as well as those of other native frog species, and other anthropogenic noise, whereas L. rothii did not. Within the stimulus periods of playbacks, male L. convexiusculus called more intensely during long silent gaps than during calling blocks. Thus, males of one frog species reduced their calling rate, possibly to minimise energy expenditure during periods of acoustic interference generated by cane toads. In spite of such modifications, the number of overlapping calls (within stimulus periods) did not differ significantly from that expected by chance. In natural conditions, the calls of cane toads are continuous rather than episodic, leaving fewer gaps of silence that male frogs could exploit. Future work could usefully quantify the magnitude of temporal (e.g. diel and seasonal) and spatial overlap between calling by toads and by frogs and the impact of call-structure shifts on the ability of male frogs to attract receptive females.

Keywords

Invasive species Acoustic communication Anuran Playback experiments Bufo marinus 

Supplementary material

265_2015_1879_Fig6_ESM.gif (497 kb)

High Resolution Image (GIF 497 kb)

265_2015_1879_MOESM1_ESM.tif (493 kb)
ESM 1(TIFF 493 kb)

References

  1. Bee MA, Perrill SA, Owen PC (2000) Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size? Behav Ecol 11:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckmann C, Crossland M, Shine R (2011) Responses of Australian wading birds to a novel toxic prey type, the invasive cane toad Rhinella marina. Biol Invasions 13:2925–2934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosch J, Marquez R (2000) Acoustical interference in the advertisement calls of the midwife toads (Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii). Behaviour 137:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Both C, Grant T (2012) Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol Lett 8:714–716CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Byers JE, Wright JT, Gribben PE (2010) Variable direct and indirect effects of a habitat-modifying invasive species on mortality of native fauna. Ecology 91:1787–1798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cunnington GM, Fahrig L (2010) Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol Int J Ecol 36:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D'Amore A, Kirby E, McNicholas M (2009) Invasive species shifts ontogenetic resource partitioning and microhabitat use of a threatened native amphibian. Aquat Conserv 19:534–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duellman W, Trueb L (1986) Biology of amphibians. McGraw-Hill Inc., Baltimore, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerhardt HC (1991) Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication. In: Insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon HR, Thomas HF (1992) The impact of the introduction of the colubrid snake Boiga irregularis on Guam's lizards. J Herpetol 26:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenlees MJ, Phillips BL, Shine R (2010) Adjusting to a toxic invader: native Australian frogs learn not to prey on cane toads. Behav Ecol 21:966–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halfwerk W, Holleman LJM, Lessells CM, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J Appl Ecol 48:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holway DA, Suarez AV (1999) Animal behavior: an essential component of invasion biology. Trends Ecol Evol 14:328–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson LS, Searcy WA (1996) Female attraction to male song in house wrens (Troglodytes aedon). Behaviour 133:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaiser K, Hammers JL (2009) The effect of anthropogenic noise on male advertisement call rate in the neotropical treefrog, Dendropsophus triangulum. Behaviour 146:1053–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lengagne T (2008) Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biol Conserv 141:2023–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Letnic M, Webb JK, Shine R (2008) Invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) cause mass mortality of freshwater crocodiles (Crocodylus johnstoni) in tropical Australia. Biol Conserv 141:1773–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levin DA (2003) Ecological speciation: lessons from invasive species. Syst Bot 28:643–650Google Scholar
  20. Littlejohn MJ, Martin AA (1969) Acoustic interaction between two species of leptodactylid frogs. Anim Behav 17:785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Llusia D, Gómez M, Penna M, Márquez R (2013) Call transmission efficiency in native and invasive anurans: competing hypotheses of divergence in acoustic signals. PLoS ONE 8:e77312CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinez-Rivera CC, Gerhardt HC (2008) Advertisement-call modification, male competition, and female preference in the bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:195–208CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McGregor PK, Catchpole CK, Dabelsteen T et al. (1992) Design of playback experiments: the Thornbridge Hall BATO ARW Consensus. In: McGregor PK (ed) Playback and studies of animal communication. NATO ASI Series A: Life Sciences, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson DWM, Crossland MR, Shine R (2011) Foraging responses of predators to novel toxic prey: effects of predator learning and relative prey abundance. Oikos 120:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Owen PC, Gordon NM (2005) The effect of perceived intruder proximity and resident body size on the aggressive responses of male green frogs, Rana clamitans (Anura : Ranidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 58:446–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parris KM, Velik-Lord M, North JMA, Function L (2009) Frogs call at a higher pitch in traffic noise. Ecol Soc 14:25 (online). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art25/
  28. Penna M, Velasquez N (2011) Heterospecific vocal interactions in a frog from the southern temperate forest, Batrachyla taeniata. Ethology 117:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips BL, Brown GP, Greenlees M, Webb JK, Shine R (2007) Rapid expansion of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) invasion front in tropical Australia. Aust Ecol 32:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pizzatto L, Shine R (2009) Native Australian frogs avoid the scent of invasive cane toads. Aust Ecol 34:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polo-Cavia N, Lopez P, Martin J (2009) Interspecific differences in chemosensory responses of freshwater turtles: consequences for competition between native and invasive species. Biol Invasions 11:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pröhl H (2003) Variation in male calling behaviour and relation to male mating success in the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Ethology 109:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rebar D, Bailey NW, Zuk M (2009) Courtship song's role during female mate choice in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav Ecol 20:1307–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sax DF, Stachowicz JJ, Brown JH, Bruno JF, Dawson MN, Gaines SD, Grosberg RK, HastingS A, Holt RD, Mayfield MM, O'Connor MI, Rice WR (2007) Ecological and evolutionary insights from species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:465–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz JJ, Wells KD (1983) An experimental study of acoustic interference between two species of neotropical treefrogs. Anim Behav 31:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Semeniuk M, Lemckert F, Shine R (2007) Breeding-site selection by cane toads (Bufo marinus) and native frogs in northern New South Wales, Australia. Wildl Res 34:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shine R (2010) The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Q Rev Biol 85:253–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shine R (2014) A review of ecological interactions between native frogs and invasive cane toads in Australia. Aust Ecol 39:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shine R, Brown GP (2008) Adapting to the unpredictable: reproductive biology of vertebrates in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 363:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sun JWC, Narins PA (2005) Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol Conserv 121:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trompeter WP, Langkilde T (2011) Invader danger: lizards faced with novel predators exhibit an altered behavioral response to stress. Horm Behav 60:152–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyler MJ, Knight F (2009) Field guide to the frogs of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  43. Urban MC, Phillips BL, Skelly DK, Shine R (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 274:1413–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Usio N, Konishi M, Nakano S (2001) Species displacement between an introduced and a 'vulnerable' crayfish: the role of aggressive interactions and shelter competition. Biol Invasions 3:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webb JK, Brown GP, Child T, Greenlees MJ, Phillips BL, Shine R (2008) A native dasyurid predator (common planigale, Planigale maculata) rapidly learns to avoid a toxic invader. Aust Ecol 33:821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wells KD (2001) The energetics of calling in frogs. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp 45–60Google Scholar
  47. Wells KD, Schwartz JJ (2007) The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. In: Hearing and sound communication in amphibians, vol 28. Springer, New York, pp 44-86Google Scholar
  48. Wiley RH (2006) Signal detection and animal communication. Adv Stud Behav 36:217–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wojcieszek JM, Nicholls JA, Marshall NJ, Goldizen AW (2006) Theft of bower decorations among male Satin Bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus): why are some decorations more popular than others? EMU 106:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wollerman L, Wiley RH (2002) Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav 63:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wong S, Parada H, Narins PM (2009) Heterospecific acoustic interference: effects on calling in the frog Oophaga pumilio in Nicaragua. Biotropica 41:74–80CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zelick RD, Narins PM (1982) Analysis of acoustically evoked call suppression behaviour in a neotropical treefrog. Anim Behav 30:728–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhou HC, Du JW, Huang YP (2005) Effects of sublethal doses of malathion on responses to sex pheromones by male Asian corn borer moths, Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenee). J Chem Ecol 31:1645–1656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iris T. Bleach
    • 1
  • Christa Beckmann
    • 2
  • Camila Both
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gregory P. Brown
    • 1
  • Richard Shine
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences A08University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  3. 3.Faculdade de Biociências, Laboratório de Sistemática de Vertebrados, PontifíciaUniversidade Católica do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations