Ecosystems

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 826–838 | Cite as

Invasive Cane Toads’ Predatory Impact on Dung Beetles is Mediated by Reservoir Type at Artificial Water Points

  • Benjamin Feit
  • Tim Dempster
  • Heloise Gibb
  • Mike Letnic
Article

Abstract

Disruption to ecosystem functioning associated with biological invasions can have dramatic effects on the production and biodiversity values of ecosystems. In semi-arid rangelands of Australia, invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) prey on dung beetles that were themselves introduced to promote nutrient cycling and reduce parasite burdens of livestock. Cane toads’ colonization of rangelands has been facilitated by artificial water points (AWP) which provide cattle with drinking water. Most AWP in northern Australia comprise bores that pump water into earthen reservoirs (dams). Dams typically support large toad populations because they allow toads’ access to water without which they could not survive. Here, we ask if restricting toads’ access to water at AWP can reduce toad populations, toads’ predatory impact on dung beetles, and the rate of dung decomposition by dung beetles. We contrasted toad and dung beetle populations, toad diets, and dung removal rates at AWP fitted with dams or tanks as reservoirs. In comparison to dams, tanks provide toads with little access to water. Population densities of toads were five times higher at dams than tanks. Conversely, population densities of dung beetles were 12 times lower at dams than tanks. Mass loss of experimental dung pats after 2 days was 13% greater at tanks than dams. Our study provides evidence that consumption of detritivores by an introduced predator can retard dung decomposition in a rangeland ecosystem. Restricting toads’ access to water at AWP should benefit livestock production by reducing both toad populations and toads’ predatory impact on dung beetles.

Keywords

cane toad invasive species pest species management rangeland water development dung decomposition 

Supplementary material

10021_2015_9865_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Anderson P, Hoffman M. 2007. The impacts of sustained heavy grazing on plant diversity and composition in lowland and upland habitats across the Kamiesberg mountain range in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa. J Arid Environ 70:686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asner G, Elmore A, Olander L, Martin R, Harris A. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:261–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillie C. 2008. Assessment of evaporation losses and evaporation mitigation technologies for on farm water storages across Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures, Irrigation Matters Series 05/08.Google Scholar
  4. Bornemissza G. 1960. Could dung eating insects improve our pastures? J Aust Inst Agric Sci 26:54–6.Google Scholar
  5. Bryan R. 1976. The effect of the dung beetle, Onthophagus gazella, on the ecology of the infective larvae of gastrointestinal nematodes of cattle. Aust J Agric Res 27:567–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham K, Anderson D. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Byers J. 2002. Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes. Oikos 97:449–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byford R, Craig M, Crosby B. 1992. A review of ectoparasites and their effect on cattle production. J Anim Sci 70:597–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Christianson D, Creel S. 2010. A nutritionally mediated risk effect of wolves on elk. Ecology 91:1184–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creel S, Winnie J Jr, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Cree M. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croll DA, Maron JL, Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV. 2005. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 307:1959–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crooks J. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis A. 1996. Seasonal dung beetle activity and dung dispersal in selected South African habitats: implications for pasture improvement in Australia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 58:157–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Gemmell NJ, Rand TA, Ewers RM. 2007. Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends Ecol Evol 22:489–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dohi H, Yamada A, Entsu S. 1991. Cattle feeding deterrents emitted from cattle feces. J Chem Ecol 17:1197–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doube B. 1991. Dung beetles of southern Africa. In: Hanski I, Cambefort Y, Eds. Dung beetle ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p 135.Google Scholar
  17. Duncan RP, Cassey P, Blackburn TM. 2009. Do climate envelope models transfer? A manipulative test using dung beetle introductions. Proc R Soc B 267:1449–57. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards P. 2009. Introduced dung beetles in australia 1967–2007: current status and future directions. Melbourne: The Orica Community Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Fay H, Doube B. 1983. The effect of some coprophagous and predatory beetles on the survival of immature stages of the African buffalo fly, Haematobia thirouxi potans, in bovine dung. Z Angew Entomol 95:460–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fay H, Macqueen A. 1990. Impact of fauna on mortality and size of Haematobia spp. (Diptera: Muscidae) in natural dung pads in Australia and South Africa. Bull Entomol Res 80:385–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Florance D, Webb JK, Dempster T, Kearney MR, Worthing A, Letnic M. 2011. Excluding access to invasion hubs can contain the spread of an invasive vertebrate. Proc R Soc B 278:2900–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeland W. 1986. Populations of cane toad, Bufo marinus, in relation to time since colonization. Wildl Res 13:321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. González-Bernal E, Greenlees MJ. 2013. Interacting biocontrol programmes: invasive cane toads reduce rates of breakdown of cowpats by dung beetles. Austral Ecol 38:891–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. González-Bernal E, Greenlees MJ, Brown GP, Shine R. 2012. Cane toads on cowpats: commercial livestock production facilitates toad invasion in tropical Australia. PloS one 7:e49351.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenlees MJ, Brown GP, Webb JK, Phillips BL, Shine R. 2006. Effects of an invasive anuran [the cane toad (Bufo marinus)] on the invertebrate fauna of a tropical Australian floodplain. Anim Conservat 9:431–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawlena D, Schmitz OJ. 2010. Herbivore physiological response to predation risk and implications for ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:15503–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James CD, Landsberg J, Morton SR. 1999. Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota. J Arid Environ 41:87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koike S, Soga M, Nemoto Y, Kozakai C. 2014. How are dung beetle species affected by deer population increases in a cool temperate forest ecosystem? J Zool . doi:10.1111/jzo.12138.Google Scholar
  29. Letnic M, Koch F, Gordon C, Crowther MS, Dickman CR. 2009. Keystone effects of an alien top-predator stem extinctions of native mammals. Proc R Soc B 276:3249–56.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Letnic M, Webb JK, Jessop TS, Florance D, Dempster T. 2014. Artificial water points facilitate the spread of an invasive vertebrate in arid Australia. J Appl Ecol 51:795–803. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Letnic M, Webb JK, Jessop TS, Dempster T. 2015. Restricting access to invasion hubs enables sustained control of an invasive vertebrate. J Appl Ecol . doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12390.Google Scholar
  32. Losey J, Vaughan M. 2006. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mack M, D’Antonio C. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mellanby K. 1939. Low temperature and insect activity. Proc R Soc B 127:473–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila M. 2008. Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell B, Letnic M, Fleming P. 2011. Managing feral goat impacts by manipulating their access to water in the rangelands. Rangel J 33:143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmitz OJ, Hawlena D, Trussell GC. 2010. Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Ecol Lett 13:1199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strickland MS, Hawlena D, Reese A, Bradford M, Schmitz OJ. 2013. Trophic cascade alters ecosystem carbon exchange. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11035–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tyndale-Biscoe M. 1990. Common dung beetles in pastures of south-eastern Australia. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Vitousek PM. 1997. Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webb JK, Letnic M, Jessop TS, Dempster T. 2014. Behavioural flexibility allows an invasive vertebrate to survive in a semi-arid environment. Biol Lett. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.1014.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wootton J. 1997. Estimates and tests of per capita interaction strength: diet, abundance, and impact of intertidally foraging birds. Ecol Monogr 67:45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zug G, Zug P. 1979. The marine toad, Bufo marinus: a natural history resume of native populations. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Feit
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tim Dempster
    • 3
  • Heloise Gibb
    • 4
  • Mike Letnic
    • 2
  1. 1.Hawkesbury Institute for the EnvironmentUniversity of Western SydneyRichmondAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations