Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 2177–2190 | Cite as

Invasive coqui frogs are associated with differences in mongoose and rat abundances and diets in Hawaii

  • Shane A. Hill
  • Karen H. BeardEmail author
  • Shane R. Siers
  • Aaron B. Shiels
Original Paper

Abstract

With the increasing rate of species being introduced to areas outside of their native ranges, non-natives are likely to interact in ways that influence each other’s populations. The high densities of invasive coqui frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui) in Hawaii have been hypothesized to increase non-native mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) and rat (Rattus spp.) abundances, and in turn increase bird nest depredation rates. We compared the relative abundances of rats and mongooses and artificial bird nest predation rates at 12 sites that had plots with similar habitat invaded and not invaded by coqui frogs across the island of Hawaii. We interpret our results considering mongoose and rat stomach analyses and camera trap data collected to monitor coqui scavengers. We found that coqui presence was associated with 30% greater mongoose abundance and 17% lower Pacific rat (R. exulans) abundance. Based on our diet analyses and scavenging data, both mongooses and rats consume coquis, but mongooses were the most important consumers of coquis, which may have contributed to their increase in coqui plots. We speculate that coquis are competing with rats for invertebrate prey due to reduced Pacific rat abundance and greater amounts of fruit in rat stomachs collected in coqui-invaded compared to uninvaded plots. We did not observe any difference in bird nest predation rates in coqui-invaded and uninvaded plots. Our results suggest that the coqui invasion may increase or decrease non-native mammal populations, and non-native amphibians may serve as both novel prey and competitors to non-native mammals.

Keywords

Eleutherodactylus coqui Herpestes auropunctatus Island Rattus spp. Nest predation Scavenger Trophic interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the USDA APHIS NWRC and the USU Ecology Center for funding; the NWRC Hilo field station and technicians, A. Grant, J.J. Cieslewics, and J. Gardner for assistance; J. Young for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript and S. Durham for statistical help. We thank C. Lepczyk for his editorial assistance and two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. This research was supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, and approved as journal paper number 9102. This research was conducted under access permits from the Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Natural Area Reserves System, State Parks Department, and Injurious Wildlife Export Permit #16-05 and was conducted in compliance with USU’s IACUC guidelines as protocols #2519 and #2753.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the research: KHB and ABS. Performed the research: SAH. Analyzed the data: SAH and SRS. Wrote the paper: SAH and KHB. Helped revise the paper: all authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Supplementary material

10530_2019_1965_MOESM1_ESM.docx (44 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 43 kb)

References

  1. Abernethy E, Turner K, Beasley J, DeVault TL, Pitt WC, Rhodes OEJ (2016) Carcasses of invasive species are predominantly utilized by invasive scavengers in an island ecosystem. Ecosphere 7:e01496.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson IAE (1977) A reassessment of factors, particularly Rattus rattus L., that influenced the decline of endemic forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. Pac Sci 31:109–133Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson IAE (1985) The spread of commensal species of Rattus to oceanic islands and their effects on island avifaunas. ICPB Tech Publ 3:35–81Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin P, Schwartz C, Schwartz E (1952) Life history and economic status of the mongoose in Hawaii. J Mamm 33:335–356.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1375771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbour T (1930) Some faunistic changes in the Lesser Antilles. Proc New Engl Xool Club 11:73–85Google Scholar
  6. Barnum C (1930) Rat control in Hawaii Hawaii Plant Rec 34:421–443Google Scholar
  7. Barun A, Simberloff D, Budinski I (2010) Impact of the small Indian mongoose on native amphibians and reptiles of the Adriatic islands. Croatia Anim Conserv 13:549–555.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00374.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barun A, Simberloff D, Tvrtković T, Pascal M (2011) Impact of the introduced small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) on abundance and activity time of the introduced ship rat (Rattus rattus) and the small mammal community on Adriatic islands. Croatia NeoBiota 11:51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00374.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Stat Softw 37:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Google Scholar
  10. Beard KH (2007) Diet of the invasive frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui, in Hawaii. Copeia 2007:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beard KH, Pitt WC (2006) Potential predators of an invasive frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui) in Hawaiian forests. J Trop Ecol 22:345–347.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467406003154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beard KH, Price EA, Pitt WC (2009) Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive species. 5. Eleutherodactylus coqui, the coqui frog (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Pac Sci 63:297–316.  https://doi.org/10.2984/049.063.0301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beckmann C, Shine R (2011) Toad’s tongue for breakfast: exploitation of a novel prey type, the invasive cane toad, by scavenging raptors in tropical Australia. Biol Invasions 13:1447–1455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9903-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bernard RF, Mautz WJ (2016) Dietary overlap between the invasive coquí frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui) and the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) on the Island of Hawai’i. Biol Invasions 18:3409–3418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1232-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi RT (2011) Invertebrate community changes along coqui invasion fronts in Hawai’i. M.S. Thesis, Utah State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi RT, Beard KH (2012) Coqui frog invasions change invertebrate communities in Hawaii. Biol Invasions 14:938–948.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0127-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis M (2003) Biotic globalization: does competition from introduced species threaten biodiversity? Bioscience 53:481–489.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053%5b0481:bgdcfi%5d2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doty RE (1945) Rat control on Hawaiian sugar cane plantations. Hawaii Plant Rec 49:71–239Google Scholar
  20. Fiske IJ, Chandler RB (2011) Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v043.i10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gangoso L, Zar JAD, Scholz S, Palacios CJ, Hiraldo F (2006) Contradiction in conservation of island ecosystems: plants, introduced herbivores and avian scavengers in the Canary Islands. Biodivers Conserv 15:2231–2248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-7181-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gorman ML (1975) The diet of feral Herpestes auropunctatus (Carnivora: Viverridae) in the Fijian Islands. J Zool 175:273–278.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1975.tb01401.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grosholz ED (2005) Recent biological invasion may hasten invasional meltdown by accelerating historical introductions. PNAS 102:1088–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hadfield MG, Miller SE, Carwile AH (1993) The decimation of endemic Hawai’ian tree snails by alien predators. Am Zoo 33:610–622.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/33.6.610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes RT, Schultz JC (1988) Food availability for forest birds: effects of prey distribution and abundance on bird foraging. Can J Zool 66:720–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(77)90042-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoshide H, Price A, Katahira L (1990) A progress report on Nene, Branta sandvicensis, in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park from 1974–89. Wildfowl 41:152–155Google Scholar
  28. Kaiser B, Burnett K (2006) Economic impacts of E. coqui frogs in Hawaii. Interdiscip Environ Rev 8:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1504/ier.2006.053951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalnicky EA, Beard KH, Brunson MW (2013) Community-level response to habitat structure manipulations: an experimental case study in a tropical ecosystem. For Ecol Manag 307:313–321.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2013.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalnicky E, Brunson M, Beard K (2014) A social–ecological systems approach to non-native species: Habituation and its effect on management of coqui frogs in Hawaii. Biol Conserv 180:187–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraus F, Campbell EW (2002) Human-mediated escalation of a formerly eradicable problem: the invasion of Caribbean frogs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Invasions 4:327–332.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020909205908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraus F, Campbell EW, Allison A, Pratt T (1999) Eleutherodactylus frog introductions to Hawaii. Herpetol Rev 30:21–25Google Scholar
  33. Lindsey G, Mosher S, Fancy S, Smucker T (1999) Population structure and movements of introduced rats in an Hawaiian rainforest. Pac Conserv Biol 5:94–102.  https://doi.org/10.1071/PC990094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loope LL, Mueller-Dombois D (1989) Characteristics of invaded islands, with special reference to Hawaii. In: Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Willaimson M (eds) Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 257–280Google Scholar
  35. Mielke PW, Berry KJ, Brier GW (1981) Application of multi-response permutation procedures for examining seasonal changes in monthly mean sea-level pressure patterns. Mon Weather Rev 109:120–126.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1981)109%3c0120:AOMRPP%3e2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morley CG, Winder L (2013) The effect of the small Indian mongoose (Urva auropunctatus), island quality and habitat on the distribution of native and endemic birds on small islands within Fiji. PLoS One 8:e53842.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Dowd DJ, Green PT, Lake PS (2003) Invasional ‘meltdown’ on an oceanic island. Ecol Lett 6:812–817.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00512.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Loughlin LS, Green PT (2017) Secondary invasion: when invasion success is contingent on other invaders altering the properties of recipient ecosystems. Ecol Evol 7:7628–7637.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2017) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4-6. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan
  40. Olson CA, Beard KH, Koons DN, Pitt WC (2012) Detection probabilities of two introduced frogs in Hawaii: implications for assessing non-native species distributions. Biol Invasions 14:889–900.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0125-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pimentel D (1955) Biology of the Indian mongoose in Puerto Rico. J Mamm 36:62–68.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1375723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pitt W, Sugihara R, Berentsen A (2015) Effect of travel distance, home range, and bait on the management of small Indian mongooses, Herpestes auropunctatus. Biol Invasions 17:1743–1759.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0831-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Puan CL, Goldizen AW, Zakaria M, Hafidzi MN, Baxter GS (2011) Relationships among rat numbers, abundance of oil palm fruit and damage levels to fruit in an oil palm plantation. Integr Zool 6:130–139.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00231.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Veinna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  45. Reed J, DesRochers D, VanderWerf E, Scott J (2012) Long-term persistence of Hawaii’s endangered avifauna through conservation-reliant management. Bioscience 62:881–892.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodriguez LF (2006) Can invasive species facilitate native species? Evidence of how, when, and why these impacts occur. Biol Invasions 8:927–939.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-5103-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savidge JA (1987) Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced snake. Ecology 68:660–668.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1938471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sax D, Gaines S, Brown J (2002) Species invasions exceed extinctions on islands worldwide: a comparative study of plants and birds. Am Nat 160:766–783.  https://doi.org/10.1086/343877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seaman G, Randall J (1962) The mongoose as a predator in the Virgin Islands. J Mamm 43:544–546.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1376922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiels AB (2010) Ecology and impacts of introduced rodents (Rattus spp. and Mus musculus) in the Hawaiian islands. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawai’iGoogle Scholar
  51. Shiels AB, Flores CA, Khamsing A, Krushelnycky PD, Mosher SM, Drake DR (2013) Dietary niche differentiation among three species of invasive rodents (Rattus rattus, R. exulans, Mus musculus). Biol Invasions 15:1037–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0348-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simberloff D, Gibbons L (2004) Now you see them, now you don’t! Population crashes of established introduced species. Biol Invasions 6:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010086329619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sin H, Beard KH, Pitt WC (2008) An invasive frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui, increases new leaf production and leaf litter decomposition rates through nutrient cycling in Hawaii. Biol Invasions 10:335–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9133-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith RL, Beard KH, Koons DN (2018) Invasive coqui frogs are associated with greater abundances of non-native birds in Hawaii. Condor 120:16–29.  https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-17-109.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sugihara R (1997) Abundance and diets of rats in two native Hawaiian forests. Pac Sci 51:189–198Google Scholar
  57. Tuttle NC, Beard KH, Pitt WC (2009) Invasive litter, not an invasive insectivore, determine invertebrate communities in Hawaiian forests. Biol Invasions 11:845–855.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9298-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. VanderWerf EA (2001) Rodent control decreases predation on artificial nests in O’ahu’elepaio habitat. J Field Ornithol 72:448–457.  https://doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-72.3.448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. VanderWerf EA, Smith DG (2002) Effects of alien rodent control on demography of the O’ahu’Elepaio, an endangered Hawaiian forest bird. Pac Conserv Biol 8:73–81.  https://doi.org/10.1071/pc020073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vitousek P, Loope L, Stone C (1987) Introduced species in Hawaii: biological effects and opportunities for ecological research. Trends Ecol Evol 2:224–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(87)90026-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker L (1945) The Hawaiian mongoose—friend or foe. Nat Hist 54:396–400Google Scholar
  62. Wallis A, Smith R, Beard K (2016) Temporal foraging patterns of non-native Coqui Frogs (Eleutherodacytlus coqui) in Hawaii. J Herpetol 50:582–588.  https://doi.org/10.1670/15-170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watari Y, Takatsuki S, Miyashita T (2008) Effects of exotic mongoose (Herpestes javanicus) on the native fauna of Amami-Oshima Island, southern Japan, estimated by distribution patterns along the historical gradient of mongoose invasion. Biol Invasions 10:7–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-007-9100-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weller S et al (2018) The effects of introduced ungulates on native and alien plant species in an island ecosystem: implications for change in a diverse mesic forest in the Hawaiian Islands. For Ecol Manag 409:518–526.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quanitfying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1313420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woolbright LL (1985) Patterns of nocturnal movement and calling by the tropical frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Herpetologica 14:1–9Google Scholar
  67. Yamada F (2002) Impacts and control of introduced small Indian mongoose on Amami Island, Japan IUCN SSC Invasive Species Spec Gr:389–392Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildland Resources and Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.USDA APHIS, Wildlife ServicesNational Wildlife Research Center, Hawaii Field StationHiloUSA
  3. 3.USDA APHIS, Wildlife ServicesNational Wildlife Research CenterFt. CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations