Article

Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala infection in Bufo marinus: lung nematodes reduce viability of metamorph cane toads.

School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Parasitology (Impact Factor: 2.35). 07/2009; 136(8):919-27. DOI: 10.1017/S0031182009006325
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cane toads (Bufo marinus) were introduced to Australia in 1935 and have since spread widely over the continent, generating concern regarding ecological impacts on native predators. Most Australian cane toad populations are infected with lung nematodes Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala, a parasite endemic to New World (native-range) cane toad populations; presumably introduced to Australia with its toad host. Considering the high intensities and prevalence reached by this parasite in Australian toad populations, and public ardour for developing a control plan for the invasive host species, the lack of experimental studies on this host-parasite system is surprising. To investigate the extent to which this lungworm influences cane toad viability, we experimentally infected metamorph toads (the smallest and presumably most vulnerable terrestrial phase of the anuran life cycle) with the helminth. Infected toads exhibited reduced survival and growth rates, impaired locomotor performance (both speed and endurance), and reduced prey intake. In summary, R. pseudosphaerocephala can substantially reduce the viability of metamorph cane toads.

Full-text

Available from: Crystal Kelehear, Jun 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
163 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The cane toad invasion in Australia provides a robust opportunity to clarify the infection process in co-evolved versus de novo host–parasite interactions. We investigated these infection dynamics through histological examination following experimental infections of metamorphs of native frogs (Cyclorana australis) and cane toads (Rhinella marina) with Rhabdias hylae (the lungworm found in native frogs) and Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala (the lungworm found in cane toads). Cane toads reared under continuous exposure to infective larvae of the frog lungworm were examined after periods of 2, 6, 10 and 15 days. Additionally, both toads and frogs were exposed for 24 h to larvae of either the toad or the frog lungworm, and examined 2, 5, 10 and 20 days post-treatment. R. hylae (frog) lungworms entered cane toads and migrated through the body but were not found in the target tissue, the lungs. Larvae of both lungworm species induced inflammation in both types of hosts, although the immune response (relative numbers of different cell types) differed between hosts and between parasite species. Co-evolution has modified the immune response elicited by infection and (perhaps for that reason) has enhanced the parasite's ability to survive and to reach the host's lungs.
    International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 04/2015; 85(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ijppaw.2015.04.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The success of an invasive species can be reduced by biotic resistance from the native fauna. For example, an invader that is eaten by native predators is less likely to thrive than one that is invulnerable. The ability of invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) to spread through Australia has been attributed to the toad’s potent defensive chemicals that can be fatal if ingested by native snakes, lizards, marsupials and crocodiles. However, several taxa of native insects and birds are resistant to cane toad toxins. If native rodents are also capable of eating toads (as suggested by anecdotal reports), these large, abundant and voracious predators might reduce toad numbers. Our field observations and laboratory trials confirm that native rodents (Melomys burtoni, Rattus colletti and Rattus tunneyi) readily kill and consume cane toads (especially small toads), and are not overtly affected by toad toxins. Captive rodents did not decrease their consumption of toads over successive trials, and ate toads even when alternative food types were available. In combination with anecdotal reports, our data suggest that rodents (both native and invasive) are predators of cane toads in Australia. Despite concerns about the decline of rodents following the invasion of toads, our data suggest that the species we studied are not threatened by toads as toxic prey, and no specific conservation actions are required to ensure their persistence.
    Journal of Pest Science 03/2014; 88(1). DOI:10.1007/s10340-014-0586-2 · 2.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most of the evidence for the deleterious effects of parasites on performance and body condition in their hosts results from experimental infection using one species of parasite. However, hosts in the field are normally infected by multiple parasite species present in different organs. We investigated the relationship between intensity of different parasites and several phenotypic characters of adult males of Rhinella icterica (Cururu Toad) captured in the field. We predicted that toads with higher parasite intensity would show lower locomotor performance, higher standard rates of oxygen consumption, poorer body-condition indices, and larger kidney, intestine, heart, lung, and liver masses. We found that these hosts were infected by six different species of parasites, with a dominance of monoxenous nematodes and no correlation between intensities of different parasites. Rhabdias fuelleborni was the only parasite associated with variation in a host’s phenotype. Individuals of R. icterica with higher lung parasite intensity showed lower locomotor performance and had larger intestines and kidneys. Individuals with higher parasite intensity did not show poorer body condition or higher standard metabolic rates, suggesting that parasite intensity in the field was not associated with large changes in energy stores and that the relationship between parasite intensity and host performance remains nonsignificant during conditions of low energy demand.
    Journal of Herpetology 07/2014; 48(3):277-283. DOI:10.1670/10-339 · 0.84 Impact Factor