Biological Invasions

, Volume 10, Issue 8, pp 1289–1298 | Cite as

Parasite loss and introduced species: a comparison of the parasites of the Puerto Rican tree frog, (Eleutherodactylus coqui), in its native and introduced ranges

  • Shenandoah R. Marr
  • William J. Mautz
  • Arnold H. Hara
Original Paper


The Puerto Rican frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui has invaded Hawaii and reached densities far exceeding those in their native range. One possible explanation for the success of E. coqui in its introduced range is that it lost its co-evolved parasites in the process of the invasion. We compared the parasites of E. coqui in its native versus introduced range. We collected parasite data on 160 individual coqui frogs collected during January-April 2006 from eight populations in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Puerto Rican coqui frogs had higher species richness of parasites than Hawaiian coqui frogs. Parasite prevalence and intensity were significantly higher in Hawaii, however this was likely a product of the life history of the dominant parasite and its minimal harm to the host. This suggests that the scarcity of parasites may be a factor contributing to the success of Eleutherodactylus coqui in Hawaii.


Anuran Eleutherodactylus coqui Enemy Release Hypothesis Invasive Parasite 



We thank J. Bettaso for assistance in the field and frog dissections, M. Dohm for assistance with statistical analysis, S. Nadler, H. Meija-Madrid, C. Bursey, and V. McKenzie for parasite identifications, C. Atkinson, M. deMaintenon, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Financial support was provided by grants from USDA under CSREES Special Grant 2004-31435-15168, managed by the Tropical/Subtropical Agricultural Research (T-STAR) Pacific Basin Administration Group (PBAG), the County of Hawaii, the National Science Foundation (Grant DEB-0445267), and the Society of Sigma Xi. Frogs in Puerto Rico were collected in accordance with Departmento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales Scientific Collection permit number 05-IC-055. Frog collections within the Caribbean National Forest were done so in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Temporary Special Use Permit number CNF-2076. Frogs in Hawaii were collected in accordance with Hawaii Department of Agriculture Possession permit number H-PL67. Animals were handled in accordance with protocols issued by the University of Hawaii’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.


  1. Anderson RM, May RM (1978) Regulation and stability of host-parasite population interactions I. Regulatory processes. J Anim Ecol 47:219–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneberg P, Skorping A, Grenfell B, Read AF (1998) Host densities as determinants of abundance in parasite communities. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1283–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arneberg P (2001) An ecological law and its macroecological consequences as revealed by studies of relationships between host densities and parasite prevalence. Ecography 24:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton DP, Pichelin S (1999) Acanthocephalus bufonis (Acanthocephala) from Bufo marinus (Bufonidae: Amphibia) in Hawaii. Parasite 6:269–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton DP, Riley J (2004) Raillietiella indica (Pentastomida) from the lungs of the giant toad, Bufo marinus (Amphibia), in Hawaii, USA. Comp Parasitol 71:251–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beard KH (2007) Diet of the invasive frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui), in Hawaii. Copeia 2007(2):281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burrowes PA, Joglar RL, Green DE (2004) Potential Causes for Amphibian Declines in Puerto Rico. Herpetologica 60:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bush AO, Lafferty KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. J Parasitol 83:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callery EM, Elinson RP (2000) Thyroid hormone-dependent metamorphosis in a direct developing frog. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:2615–2620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornell HV, Hawkins BA (1993) Accumulation of native parasitoid species on introduced herbivores: A comparison of hosts as natives and hosts as invaders. The Amer Nat 141:847–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Criscione CD, Font WF (2001) The guest playing host: colonization of the introduced Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turicicus, by helminth parasites in Southeastern Louisiana. J Parasitol 87:1273–1278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD (2003) Infectious disease and amphibian population declines. Divers Distrib 9:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobson AP (1990) Models for multi-species parasite-host communities. In: Esch GW, Bush AO, Aho JM (eds) Parasite communities: Patterns and Processes. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 261–288Google Scholar
  14. Dyer WG, Williams EH, Bunkley-Williams L (1995) Nematode parasites of a Puerto Rican tree frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui. Trans Ill State Acad Sci 88:39–41Google Scholar
  15. Formanowicz DB, Stewart MM, Townsend K, Pough FH, Brussard PF (1981) Predation by giant crab spiders on the Puerto Rican frog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Herpetologica 37:125–129Google Scholar
  16. Goater CP, Semlitsch RD, Bernasconi MV (1993) Effects of body size and parasite infection on the locomotory performance of juvenile toads, Bufo bufo. Oikos 66:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goater CP, Ward PI (1992) Negative effects of Rhabdias bufonis (Nematoda) on the growth and survival of toads (Bufo bufo). Oecologica 89:161–165Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg SR, Bursey CR (2000) Transport of helminths to Hawaii via the brown anole, Anolis sagrei (Polychrotidae). J Parasitol 86:750–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg SR, Bursey CR, Kraus F (2007) Eleutherodactylus coqui (Puerto Rican Coqui) Endoparasites. Herpetol Rev 38:183–184Google Scholar
  20. Harman WJ, Lawler AR (1975) Dero (Allodero) hylae, an oligochaete symbiont in hylid frogs in Mississippi. Trans Am Microsc Soc 94:38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heins DC, Ulinski B, Johnson J, Baker JA (2004) Effect of the cestode parasite Schistocephalus pungitii on the reproductive success of ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius. Can J Zool 82:1731–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hudson PJ, Dobson AP, Newborn D (1992) Do parasites make prey vulnerable to predation? Red grouse and parasites. J Anim Ecol 61:681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hudson PJ, Dobson AP, Lafferty KD (2006) Is a healthy ecosystem one that is rich in parasites? Trends Ecol Evol 21:381–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy CR, Bush AO (1994) The relationship between pattern and scale in parasite communities: a stranger in a strange land. Parasitology 109:187–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kraus F, Campbell EW, Allison A, Pratt T (1999) Eleutherodactylus frog introductions to Hawaii. Herpetol Rev 30:21–25Google Scholar
  26. Kraus F, Campbell EW (2002) Human-mediated escalation of a formerly eradicable problem: the invasion of Caribbean frogs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biol Inv 4:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lafferty KD (1999) The evolution of trophic transmission. Parasitology Today 15:111–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopez LCSL, Pena Rodrigues PJF, Rios RI (1999) Frogs and snakes as phoretic dispersal agents of bromeliad ostracods (Limnocytheridae: Elpidium) and Annelids (Naididae: Dero). Biotropica 31:705–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCallum H, Dobson A (1995) Detecting disease and parasite threats to endangered species and ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 10:190–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421:625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parris MJ, Cornelius TO (2004) Fungal Pathogen Causes Competitive and Developmental Stress in Larval Amphibian Communities. Ecology 85:3385–3395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pritchard MH, Kruse G (1982) The Collection and Preservation of Animal Parasites. Technical Bulletin No. 1, the Harold W. Manter Laboratory, Nebraska, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson BA (1999) The Bromeliad Microcosm and the Assessment of Faunal Diversity in a Neotropical Forest. Biotropica 31:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberts LS, Janovy J (2005) Foundations of parasitology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  35. Santana CE, Temple SA (1988) Breeding Biology and Diet of Red-Tailed Hawks in Puerto Rico. Biotropica 20:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt GD, Whittaker FH (1975) Nematode parasites of Puerto Rican tree frogs, Eleutherodactylus spp: two new species and a proposal of Poekilostrongylus gen.nov. (Trichostrongylidae). Parasitology 70:287–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sin H, Beard KH, Pitt WC (in press) An invasive frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui increases new leaf production and leaf litter decomposition rates through nutrient cycling in Hawaii. Biol InvGoogle Scholar
  38. Smyth JD, Smyth MM (1980) Frogs as Host-Parasite systems I. An Introduction to Parasitology through the Parasites of Rana temporaria, R. esculenta, and R. pipiens. Macmillan Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Stewart MM, Woolbright LL (1996) Amphibians. In: Reagan, Waide (eds) The food web of a tropical rain forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 274–320Google Scholar
  40. Tompkins DM, Begon M (1999) Parasites can regulate wildlife populations. Parasitol Today 15:311–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (2001) Release from parasites as natural enemies: increased performance of a globally introduced marine crab. Biol Inv 3:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Dobson AP, McKenzie VJ, Kuris AM (2003) Introduced species and their missing parasites. Nature 421:628–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waide RB, Reagan DP (1996) The rain forest setting. In: Reagan, Waide (eds) The food web of a tropical rain forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago pp 3–16Google Scholar
  44. Woolbright LL, Hara AH, Jacobsen CM, Mautz WJ, Benevides FL (2006) Population densities of the coqui, Eleutherodactylus coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in newly invaded Hawaii an in native Puerto Rico. J Herpetol 40:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shenandoah R. Marr
    • 1
    • 2
  • William J. Mautz
    • 1
  • Arnold H. Hara
    • 2
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUniversity of Hawaii at HiloHiloUSA
  2. 2.Beaumont Agricultural Research Center, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human ResourcesUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations