Cane toads, the successful invaders on the leap

The cane toad (rhinella marina) are an invasive species of toad that were introduced to Australia
in 1935 (Taylor et al., 2017). Their average lifespan in the wild is 15 years, in captivity they can
live as long as 40 years. They have glands on their bodies that secrete a powerful toxin capable
of killing anything brave enough to ingest the toad (Gadagkar, 2003). Cane toads were
introduced in an attempt to control the cane beetle populations that were destroying sugar cane
crops in Queensland. Not only did the cane toad reproduce uncontrollably, the whole exercise
was unfortunately ineffective as the cane toad could not reach the cane beetles effectively.
Since introduction in 1935, the cane toad has advanced roughly 2,000km or 23km per year
when averaged linearly (Easteal et al., 1985). To better understand how to control the cane
toad, we must understand what allowed it to be such a successful invasive species.

Why the cane toad was introduced:

In 1935 the Australian sugar cane industry was at risk from a predator known as the cane beetle
(dermolepida albohirtum). This beetle unchecked causes devastating damage to sugar cane
crops, adult beetles eat the leaves of the sugar cane causing mild damage, but the most
damage is caused by the larvae of dermolepida albohirtum. Once hatched, the larvae feed on
the roots of the plant, in most cases causing the sugar cane plant to die; from the year 2001 to
2002 it is estimated that 1,045,000 tonnes of sugar cane valued at 38 million dollars AUD was
lost due to the cane beetle (Hunt et al., 2002). The cane beetle problem in 1935 led to scientists
at the time believing that introducing the cane toad would solve the problem that the cane beetle
caused, the scientists neglected the thoughts of a possible cane toad problem for what they
believed to be solution (Webber, 2010). This haphazard decision lead to the introduction of the
cane toad in Australia.

Defences:
The cane toad has a deadly defence, when threatened it secretes a toxin known as bufotoxin
which is quite potent. When bufotoxin is ingested it produces symptoms such as nausea,
vomiting, muscle spasms and in severe cases cardiac arrest, even if the bufotoxin is not
ingested, contact with skin is irritating and contact with eyes causes severe pain (J Tyler and
Knight Frank, 2011). This defence is so powerful that it is now acting as a selection pressure,
the death adder (acanthophis praelongus) is evolving to have a smaller head than average, due
to the adders that aren’t able to swallow cane toads now having an advantageous trait (Shine,
2011). The cane toad not only poses a risk to fauna and flora, there have been reports of
human deaths, although it is probable that the cause of human death was deliberate ingestion
of the toxin (Global Invasive Species Database, 2019). This bufotoxin that the cane toad
produces is an advantageous trait, as it would be likely to kill or injure any predator that
attempts to make a meal of the toad. Interestingly enough bufotenin which is one of the
compounds in the bufotoxin is classified as a class 1 scheduled drug in Australia the same class

1
as heroin (Customs Regulations, 2018). This defence that the cane toad has would allow it to
have a higher fitness than other native species of amphibians that do not have bufotoxin
producing glands.

Habitat:
The native habitat for the cane toad is central America, the areas in which the cane toad thrive
are subtropical (Global Invasive Species Database, 2019). The cane toads native habitat has a
similar climate to northern Queensland and some other coastal regions in Australia.

Figure 1. A map showing the predicted distribution of the cane toad in Australia based on a
model that factors in annual maximum and minimum temperature, annual precipitation, moisture
index, elevation and several other variables; (a) shows the distribution that was current as of
2006, (b) shows the prediction from the model. Adapted from (C Urban et al., 2007)

This habitat in northern Queensland allowed the cane toad to successfully be a successful
invasive species as their body plans were already adapted to thrive in this particular climate.

Morphology:
The cane toad is sometimes referred to as “the giant toad”, a name given to it because of the
cane toads large size when compared with other native amphibians. Its average length is
between 10 to 15 cm when mature adults, the largest recorded cane toad was 24 cm (University
of Florida, 2017). They are naturally bigger than most of the native species of amphibians found
in Australia, this allows them to dominate when competing for resources as the native species
simply cannot compete, the cane toad will secrete bufotoxin and simply sit still, allowing the
native species to get poisoned if it dare attempt to attack the cane toad (Taylor et al., 2017).

2
Conclusion:
The traits that permit the cane toad to be so successful include a toxin secreted from
specialised glands on the cane toads back which is deadly to any prey that dare ingest or even
bite into the cane toad, a favourable habitat allowing the cane toad to live in conditions similar to
that of its native habitat and a large body size when compared to native amphibians allowing the
cane toad to physically dominate competitors. The traits that permit the cane toad to be so
successful at invading land discussed in this essay are just the tip of the iceberg, research is
ongoing and will be crucial in the fight to control the cane toad population, if nothing is done, the
cane toad will continue to extend its range and threaten more native species. It is clear that
more research in the field of biological control agents will be beneficial.

References:

C Urban, M. et al. (2007) “The cane toad’s increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a
dynamically updated range model,” p. 2.

Customs Regulations (2018) Australian Government.

Easteal, S. et al. (1985) “Continuing Geographical Spread of Bufo marinus in Australia: Range
Expansion between 1974 and 1980,” 19, pp. 184–189.

Gadagkar, R. (2003) “The Cane Toad. The History and Ecology of a Successful Colonist,”

3
Ethology, 109(4), p. 2.

Global Invasive Species Database (2019) “GSID,” p. 1.

Hunt, W. D. et al. (2002) “Developing and extending ‘GrubPlan’ for management of greyback
canegrub damage in Queensland sugarcane,” p. 2.

J Tyler, M. and Knight Frank (2011) Field Guide to the Frogs of Australia. 1st edn, pp. 20–41.

Shine, R. (2011) “Invasive species as drivers of evolutionary change: cane toads in tropical
Australia,” p. 5.

Taylor, A. et al. (2017) “Impact of cane toads on a community of Australian native frogs,
determined by 10 years of automated identification and logging of calling behaviour,” 1, pp. 1–2.

University of Florida (2017) Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation.

Webber, K. (2010) Cane toads and other rogue species. 1st edn, pp. 15–26.