Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 7, pp 2037–2047

Geographical variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism of introduced American bullfrogs in southwestern China

Original Paper

Abstract

Invasive species often exhibit geographical variations in life history traits that may allow them to successfully invade different environments. We investigated geographical variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism (SSD) of invasive bullfrogs in southwestern China, by sampling two breeding populations (descendants of a single source population) inhabiting sites at low (1,412 m, Shiping) and high (2,692 m, Luguhu) altitudes. Both populations exhibited significant SSD, with females larger than males. At high altitude, mean body size of both sexes and the degree of SSD were significantly reduced; the reduction in mean body size with increasing altitude was more pronounced in females, although not significantly so. Female bullfrogs also showed a significant decrease in average age at high altitude that may be a major factor related to this pattern; average age of male bullfrogs did not vary significantly with altitude. Growth rate of both sexes was also lower at high altitude. Our results provide the first evidence that introduced bullfrog’s exhibit geographical variation in morphology in invaded areas in response to different environments, likely due to changes in climate. Additional research is required to determine the mechanism of this variation (i.e., physiological or developmental plasticity, mortality rate, selective pressure) and most importantly, to evaluate the potential for variation in the impacts of introduced bullfrogs on native ecosystems in China.

Keywords

Invasion ecology Life history traits Plasticity Altitude Rana catesbeiana 

References

  1. Adams MJ (1999) Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. J Wildl Manage 63:1162–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams MJ, Pearl CA (2007) Problems and opportunities managing invasive bullfrogs—is there any hope? In: Gherardi F (ed) Biological invaders in inland waters—profiles distribution and threats. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 679–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcaraz C, Garcia-Berthou E (2007) Life history variation of invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) along a salinity gradient. Biol Conserv 139:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander JM, Edwards PJ, Poll M, Parks CG, Dietz H (2009) Establishment of parallel altitudinal clines in traits of native and introduced forbs. Ecol 90:612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashton KG (2002) Do amphibians follow Bergmann’s rule? Can J Zool 80:708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashton KG, Feldman CR (2003) Bergmann’s rule in nonavian reptiles: turtles follow it, lizards and snakes reverse it. Evolution 57:1151–1163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker T, Dietz H, Billeter R, Buschmann H, Edwards PJ (2005) Altitudinal distribution of alien plant species in the Swiss Alps. Perspect Plant Ecol 7:173–183Google Scholar
  8. Benejam L, Alcaraz C, Sasal P, Simon-Levert G (2008) Life history and parasites of the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) along a latitudinal gradient. Biol Inv Online First. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a8927140mhrh7171/. Accessed 12 Aug 2009
  9. Bergmann C (1847) Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger Studien 3:595–708Google Scholar
  10. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Loder N (1999) Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann’s rule. Divers Distrib 5:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blanckenhorn WU, Demont M (2004) Bergmann and converse Bergmann latitudinal clines in arthropods: two ends of a continuum? Integr Comp Biol 44:413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bohn T, Sandlund OT, Amundsen PA, Primicerio R (2004) Rapidly changing life history during invasion. Oikos 106:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boone MD, Semlitsch RD, Little EE, Doyle MC (2007) Multiple stressors in amphibian communities: effects of chemical contamination, bullfrogs, and fish. Ecol Appl 17:291–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage VM, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruneau M, Magnin E (1980) Croissance, nutrition et reproduction des ouaouarons Rana catesbeiana Shaw (Amphibia Anura) des Laurentides au nord de Montreal. Can J Zool 58:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell T, Echternacht A (2003) Introduced species as moving targets: changes in body sizes of introduced lizards following experimental introductions and historical invasions. Biol Inv 5:193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castanet J, Newman DG, Saintgirons H (1988) Skeletochronological data on the growth, age, and population-structure of the Tuatara, Sphenodon punctatus, on Stephens island and Lady-Alice island, New Zealand. Herpetologica 44:25–37Google Scholar
  18. Chen SZ (1993) Preliminary study on introduced frogs in China. Chin J zool 28(2):12–14Google Scholar
  19. Chen YH, Bi JF (2007) Biogeography and hotspots of amphibian species of China: implications to reserve selection and conservation. Curr Sci 92:480–489Google Scholar
  20. Daehler CC (2005) Upper-montane plant invasions in the Hawaiian islands: patterns and opportunities. Perspect Plant Ecol 7:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C (2007) Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species––the American bullfrog. Divers Distrib 13:476–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Macroecology: pattern and process. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbons MM, McCarthy TK (1983) Age determination of frogs and toads (Amphibia, Anura) from north-western Europe. Zool Scr 12:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Govindarajulu P, Price WS, Anholt BR (2006) Introduced bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in western Canada: has their ecology diverged? J Herpetol 40:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halliday TR, Verrell PA (1988) Body size and age in amphibians and reptiles. J Herpetol 22:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hänfling B, Kollmann J (2002) An evolutionary perspective of biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:545–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hemelaar A (1988) Age, growth and other population characteristics of Bufo bufo from different latitudes and altitudes. J Herpetol 22:369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard RD (1978a) Evolution of mating strategies in bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana. Evolution 32:850–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howard RD (1978b) Influence of male-defended oviposition sites on early embryo mortality in bullfrogs. Ecology 59:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howard RD (1981) Sexual dimorphism in bullfrogs. Ecology 62:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Institute of Special Aquaculture Species of Hanshou County Hunan Province, Departmant of Biology, Hunan Normal University (1986) Breeding and farming technology of bullfrogs (Rudin). China Fish 11:21Google Scholar
  32. Jiang GZ (2008) On the development of Chinese freshwater fish culture technology in the 20th century. Dissertation, Nanjing Agricultural UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. Kats LB, Ferrer RP (2003) Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Divers Distrib 9:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kiesecker JM, Blaustein AR, Miller CL (2001) Potential mechanisms underlying the displacement of native red-legged frogs by introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 82:1964–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kollmann J, Banuelos MJ (2004) Latitudinal trends in growth and phenology of the invasive alien plant Impatiens glandulifera (Balsaminaceae). Divers Distrib 10:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kupferberg SJ (1997) Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78:1736–1751Google Scholar
  37. Lai YC, Lee TH, Kam YC (2005) A skeletochronological study on a subtropical, riparian ranid (Rana swinhoana) from different elevations in Taiwan. Zool Sci 22:653–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee CE (2002) Evolutionary genetics of invasive species. Trends Ecol Evol 17:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Li C, Xie F (2004) Invasion of bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) in China and its management strategies. Chinese J Appl Environ Biol 10:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li YM, Wu ZJ, Duncan RP (2006) Why islands are easier to invade: human influences on bullfrog invasion in the Zhoushan archipelago and neighboring mainland China. Oecologia 148:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu X, Li YM (2009) Aquaculture enclosures relate to the establishment of feral populations of introduced species. PLoS ONE 4(7): e6199. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006199. Accessed 12 Aug 2009
  42. Lockwood JL (1999) Using taxonomy to predict success among introduced avifauna: relative importance of transport and establishment. Conserv Biol 13:560–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lodge DM (2004) Alien species and evolution: the evolutionary ecology of exotic plants, animals, microbes, and interacting native species. Nature 432:276–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lovich JE, Gibbons JW (1992) A review of techniques quantifying sexual size dimorphism. Growth Dev Aging 56:269–281Google Scholar
  45. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the World’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. Published by The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)Google Scholar
  46. Ma X, Tong L, Lu X (2009) Variation of body size, age structure and growth of a temperate frog, Rana chensinensis, over an elevational gradient in northern China. Amphib-reptil 30:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGarrity M, Johnson S (2009) Geographic trend in sexual size dimorphism and body size of Osteopilus septentrionalis (Cuban treefrog): implications for invasion of the southeastern United States. Biol Inv 11:1411–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miaud C, Guyetant R, Elmberg J (1999) Variations in life-history traits in the common frog Rana temporaria (Amphibia : Anura): a literature review and new data from the French Alps. J Zool 249:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ministry of Agriculture of the P.R.C. (1996) Brief introduction of aquaculture species in China. J Beij Fish 3:3–11Google Scholar
  50. Monnet JM, Cherry MI (2002) Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 269:2301–2307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mooney H, Hobbs R (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Morrison C, Hero JM (2003) Geographic variation in life-history characteristics of amphibians: a review. J Anim Ecol 72:270–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morrison C, Hero JM, Browning J (2004) Altitudinal variation in the age at maturity, longevity, and reproductive lifespan of anurans in subtropical Queensland. Herpetologica 60:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearson D, Shine R, Williams A (2002) Geographic variation in sexual size dimorphism within a single snake species (Morelia spilota, Pythonidae). Oecologia 131:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosecchi E, Thomas F, Crivelli AJ (2001) Can life-history traits predict the fate of introduced species? A case study on two cyprinid fish in southern France. Freshw Biol 46:845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosso A, Castellano S, Giacoma C (2005) Ecogeographic analysis of morphological and life-history variation in the Italian treefrog. Evol Ecol 18:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ryser J (1996) Comparative life histories of a low-and a high-elevation population of the common frog Rana temporaria. Amphibia-Reptilia 17:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sagor ES, Ouellet M, Barten E, Green DM (1998) Skeletochronology and geographic variation in age structure in the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. J Herpetol 32:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG (2001) The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schauble CS (2004) Variation in body size and sexual dimorphism across geographical and environmental space in the frogs Limnodynastes tasmaniensis and L. peronii. Biol J Linn Soc 82:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schroeder EE, Baskett TS (1968) Age estimation, growth rates, and population structure in Missouri bullfrogs. Copeia 3:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shirose LJ, Brooks RJ, Barta JR, Desser SS (1993) Intersexual differences in growth, mortality, and size at maturity in bullfrogs in central Ontario. Can J Zool 71:2363–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simberloff D, Parker IM, Windle PN (2005) Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front Ecol Environ 3:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smirina E (1994) Age determination and longevity in amphibians. Gerontol 40:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith RJ (1999) Statistics of sexual size dimorphism. J Hum Evol 36:423–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Spear P, Boily M, Giroux I, DeBlois C, Leclair M, Levasseur M, Leclair R (2009) Study design, water quality, morphometrics and age of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana, in sub-watersheds of the Yamaska river drainage basin, Québec, Canada. Aquat Toxicol 91:110–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Stillwell RC, Morse GE, Fox CW (2007) Geographic variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism of a seed-feeding beetle. Am Nat 170:358–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Sun DJ (1990) The artificial breeding technology of bullfrogs. J Heilongjiang For 1:23–24Google Scholar
  71. Travis J (1994) Evaluating the adaptive role of morphological plasticity. In: Wainright PC, Reilly SM (eds) Ecological morphology: integrative organismal biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  72. von Bertalanffy L (1957) Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Q Rev Biol 32:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang YP, Guo ZW, Pearl CA, Li YM (2007) Body size affects the predatory interactions between introduced American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and native anurans in China: an experimental study. J Herpetol 41:514–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilcove DS, Chen LY (1998) Management costs for endangered species. Conserv Biol 12:1405–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu ZJ, Wang YP, Li YM (2004) Natural populations of bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and their potential threat in the east of Zhejiang province. Biodivers Sci 12:441–446Google Scholar
  76. Wu ZJ, Li YM, Wang YP, Adams MJ (2005) Diet of introduced Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): predation on and diet overlap with native frogs on Daishan island, China. J Herpetol 39:668–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xu H, Qiang S, Han Z, Gu J, Huang Z, Sun H, He S, Ding H, Wu H, Wan F (2006) The status and causes of alien species invasion in China. Biodivers Conserv 15:2893–2904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zeng XJ (1998) Prospect and strategy of bullfrog farming. Inland Fish 10:4–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Graduate University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Gulf Coast Research and Education CenterUniversity of Florida/IFASPlant CityUSA

Personalised recommendations