Systemic retention of ingested cantharidin by frogs

Frogs (Rana pipiens) fed on blister beetles (Meloidae) or cantharidin, retain cantharidin systemically. After cessation of feeding, they void the compound relatively quickly. Systemic cantharidin does not protect frogs against ectoparasitic feeding by leeches (Hirudo medicinalis) or predation by snakes (Nerodia sipedon). As suggested by our data, and from reports in the early literature, ingestion of cantharidin-containing frogs can pose a health threat to humans.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43540/1/49_2005_Article_BF01325229.pd

Optimal foraging and community structure: implications for a guild of generalist grassland herbivores

A particular linear programming model is constructed to predict the diets of each of 14 species of generalist herbivores at the National Bison Range, Montana. The herbivores have body masses ranging over seven orders of magnitude and belonging to two major taxa: insects and mammals. The linear programming model has three feeding constraints: digestive capacity, feeding time and energy requirements. A foraging strategy that maximizes daily energy intake agrees very well with the observed diets. Body size appears to be an underlying determinant of the foraging parameters leading to diet selection. Species that possess digestive capacity and feeding time constraints which approach each other in magnitude have the most generalized diets. The degree that the linear programming models change their diet predictions with a given percent change in parameter values (sensitivity) may reflect the observed ability of the species to vary their diets. In particular, the species which show the most diet variability are those whose diets tend to be balanced between monocots and dicots. The community-ecological parameters of herbivore body-size ranges and species number can possibly be related to foraging behavior.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47765/1/442_2004_Article_BF00377109.pd

Diet composition of an invasive population of Lithobates catesbeianus

The American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus has been introduced around the world, with invasive populations reported from almost all South American countries. A population of this species was introduced in the Calingasta department of San Juan province, which is an arid environment in western Argentina. This work provides information on the dietary composition of an invasive population of L. catesbeianus, and compares the degree of dietary overlap between adults and juveniles. Stomach contents of 169 bullfrogs (82 adults and 87 juveniles) were analysed. Adults consumed 40 prey taxa and Hymenoptera (Insecta) was the most numerous prey item (41.8%), followed by Araneae (13.6%) and Aeglidae (13.4%). Juveniles consumed 29 prey taxa and Hymenoptera constituted the highest percentage in prey number (77.2%). The trophic overlap niche index at the same level shows a value of 0.64 overlap in dietary community between adults and juveniles of this bullfrog. Aeglidae was volumetrically the most important trophic item (25.4%), followed by Anura (25.02%). Our results showed that cannibalism in bullfrogs is more common than the consumption of native anurans, coinciding with that reported in other populations of introduced bullfrogs. The high similarity in the diets of both size classes and the association between the size of the predator and prey suggest that the impact caused by bullfrogs throughout their ontogeny is high andprobablyhasanimpactontheirprey.Freshwatercrabsarethemainitemsinthe diet of Lithobates catesbeianus in other introduced populations and are usually the most conspicuous at our study site. The crabs in freshwater ecosystems are part of the lowest trophic level in the food chain. The major threats to the southern region’s freshwater crabs include deforestation, farming and exotic species. Lithobates catesbeianus has a generalist diet and high overlap between adults and juveniles.Fil: Quiroga, Lorena Beatriz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Moreno Avila, María Daniela. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Cataldo, Ariel Anibal. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Aragon y Traverso, Juan Héctor. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Pantano, María Victoria. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Olivares Toselli, Juan Pablo Segundo. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Sanabria, Eduardo Alfredo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - San Juan; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Filosofía, Humanidades y Artes. Instituto de Ciencias Básicas; Argentin