Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24533330›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife2013

Do invasive cane toads affect the parasite burdens of native Australian frogs?

Damian C Lettoof, Matthew J Greenlees, Michelle Stockwell, Richard Shine

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Enigmatic decline of a common fish parasite (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Helpful invaders: Can cane toads reduce the parasite burdens of native frogs?International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Damian C LettoofSchool of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Matthew J GreenleesSchool of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Michelle StockwellSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Richard ShineSchool of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most devastating impacts of an invasive species is the introduction of novel parasites or diseases to native fauna. Invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) in Australia contain several types of parasites, raising concern that the toads may increase rates of parasitism in local anuran species. We sampled cane toads and sympatric native frogs (Limnodynastes peronii, Litoria latopalmata, and Litoria nasuta) at the southern invasion front of cane toads in north-eastern New South Wales (NSW). We dissected and swabbed these anurans to score the presence and abundance of nematodes (Rhabdias lungworms, and gastric encysting nematodes), myxozoans, and chytrid fungus. To determine if cane toad invasion influences rates of parasitism in native frogs, we compared the prevalence and intensity of parasites in frogs from areas with toads, to frogs from areas without toads. Contrary to the situation on the (rapidly-expanding) tropical invasion front, cane toads on the slowly-expanding southern front were heavily infected with rhabditoid lungworms. Toads also contained gastric-encysting nematodes, and one toad was infected by chytrid fungus, but we did not find myxozoans in any toads. All parasite groups were recorded in native frogs, but were less common in areas invaded by toads than in nearby yet to be invaded areas. Contrary to our predictions, toad invasion was associated with a reduced parasite burden in native frogs. Thus, cane toads do not appear to transfer novel parasites to native frog populations, or act as a reservoir for native parasites to 'spill-back' into native frogs. Instead, cane toads may reduce frog-parasite numbers by taking up native parasites that are then killed by the toad's immune defences.

Indexed as

AnuraBiological invasionHost–parasite interactionHost-switchNovel host

Identifiers

PMID24533330
PMCPMC3862496
OpenAlexW2017277412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.