4.0 Article

Sex and age differences in habitat use by invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) and a native anuran (Cyclorana australis) in the Australian wet-dry tropics

期刊

AUSTRAL ECOLOGY
卷 40, 期 8, 页码 953-961

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aec.12279

关键词

Bufo marinus; biological invasion; generalist; habitat preference; microhabitat

类别

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. University of Sydney
  3. Mexican National Science and Technology Council (CONACyT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although generalized habitat use may contribute to the success of invasive taxa, even species that are typically described as habitat generalists exhibit non-random patterns of habitat use. We measured abiotic and biotic factors in 42 plots (each 100x10m) along a 4.2-km long unpaved road in tropical Australia, at a site that had been invaded by cane toads (Rhinella marinaBufonidae) seven years previously. We also counted anurans at night in each of these plots on 103 nights during the tropical wet season, over a five-year period, beginning soon after the initial toad invasion. Spatial distributions differed significantly among adult male toads (n=1047), adult female toads (n=1222), juvenile toads (n=342) and native frogs (Cyclorana australisHylidae, n=234). Adult male toads were closely associated with water bodies used as calling and/or spawning sites, whereas adult female toads and native frogs were most commonly encountered in drier forested areas on sloping ground. Juvenile toads used the margins of the floodplain more than conspecific adults did, but the floodplain itself was rarely used. Understanding which components of the habitat are most important to specific age and sex classes within a population, or how invasive species differ from native species in this respect, can clarify issues such as the spatial and temporal location of ecological impact by an invader, and the most effective places for control of the invader with minimal collateral effects on the native biota.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据