Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October
2019 | 11(13): 14663–14671
A food spectrum analysis of
three bufonid species (Anura: Bufonidae)
from Uttarakhand region of the western Himalaya, India
Vivekanand Bahuguna
1, Ashish Kumar Chowdhary 2, Shurveer
Singh 3, Gaurav Bhatt 4, Siddhant Bhardwaj 5,
Nikita Lohani 6 & Satyanand
Bahuguna 7
1–5, 7 Department
of Zoology and Biotechnology, H.N.B. Garhwal
University, Srinagar Garhwal, Uttarakhand 246174,
India.
1,6 Department
of Biotechnology, Uttaranchal College of Applied and Life Sciences, Uttaranchal
University,
Uttarakhand 248007, India.
1 vn1bahuguna@gmail.com,
2 chowdharyashish006@gmail.com, 3 singh.shurveer@gmail.com,
4 grvbhatt231089@gmail.com,
5 siddhantbhardwaj80@gmail.com, 6 nikita1211@gmail.com,
7 profsnbahuguna@rediffmail.com
(corresponding author)
Abstract: The ecological diversity of insects and its predators
like amphibians are important determinants in ecological balance. A total of 1,222 prey items in 84 specimens
were examined to contribute the understanding of the diets of three Duttaphrynus species, viz., himalayanus,
melanostictus, and stomaticus
from Uttarakhand, the western Himalaya, India.
Gut content analysis of three bufonids revealed acceptance of a wide
range of terrestrial insects and other invertebrates as their food. The index of relative importance indicated
that the most important preys were Formicidae, Coleoptera and Orthoptera.
Duttaphrynus melanostictus
had the broadest dietary niche breadth, followed by D. himalaynus and D. stomaticus. The wide prey spectrum well indicates that
these species are the generalist and opportunist invertebrate feeder. Information pertaining to the food spectrum
analysis contributes to understanding the ecological roles and used as a
baseline data for future successful amphibian conservation and management
programs in the Himalayan ecosystem.
Keywords: Bufonid, importance of relative index, Levin’s
measure, stomach flushing, western Himalaya.
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4335.11.13.14663-14671
Editor: Sushil K. Dutta, Retired
Professor of Zoology, Bhubaneswar, India. Date
of publication: 26 October 2019 (online & print)
Manuscript details: #4335 | Received 14 June 2018 |
Final received 04 January 2019 | Finally accepted 29 July 2019
Citation: Bahuguna, V., A.K. Chowdhary, S. Singh,
G. Bhatt, S. Bhardwaj, N. Lohani & S. Bahuguna (2019). A food spectrum analysis of three
bufonid species (Anura: Bufonidae)
from Uttarakhand region of the western Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(13): 14663–14671. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4335.11.13.14663-14671
Copyright: © Bahuguna et al. 2019. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by adequate credit to the author(s)
and the source of publication.
Funding: This study
was supported by University
Grant commission (UGC), H.N.B. Garhwal
University (A Central University), Srinagar Garhwal, Uttarakhand and Uttaranchal University, Dehradun.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Author details: Dr. Vivekanand Bahuguna (VNB), PhD, is Assistant Professor at Department of Biotechnology. His
research is focus on molecular taxonomy, biotechnology and conservation biology
of amphibians from western Himalaya. Dr.
Ashish Kumar Chowdhary (AKC), PhD, is Assistant Professor (Guest
Faculty) in Department of Zoology and Biotechnology. His research interest
includes cytogenetics, molecular taxonomy and conservation biology of fish and
amphibians. Shurveer Singh (SS), PhD, is Assistant Professor
(Guest Faculty) in Department of Zoology and Biotechnology. His research area
includes habitat ecology, diversity and conservation biology of crustaceans. Dr. Gaurav Bhatt (GB), PhD, is Assistant
Professor (Guest Faculty) in Department of Zoology and Biotechnology. His
research interest includes ecology, molecular biology and Ichthyology. Sidhant Bhardwaj (SB), is PhD candidate in
Department of Zoology and Biotechnology. His research interest includes Ecology
and Conservation Biology. Nikita Lohani (NL),
is master student at Department of Biotechnology. Her research focuses on
biology, foraging behaviour and molecular taxonomy of
amphibians. Prof. S.N. Bahuguna (SNB), PhD, D.F.Sc.
(Poland) is Professor in Department of Zoology and Biotechnology and has 35
years of teaching and research experience. He has published more than 80
national and international research papers in the field of Ichthyology,
Batrachology, Mammalogy and Animal Tissue Culture.
Author contribution: VNB & AKC performed the
survey, data collection and finalized the manuscript. SS, GB, SB helped in
survey and data collection. NL helped in data analysis at the time of
manuscript revision. SNB supervised the overall study design and securing the
fund.
Acknowledgements: Financial assistance in the form of UGC Fellowship
funded by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India is
gratefully acknowledged. We thank Lokesh
Adhikari for help with technical assistance.
INTRODUCTION
The family Bufonidae (Gray 1830) is one of the most species-rich families of
anurans belonging to the class Amphibia.
It is a large and geographically widespread taxon of neobatrachian
frogs (Reig 1958; Lynch 1973; Duellman
& Trueb 1986).
It comprises more than 550 species in ca. 50 recognized genera
geographically ubiquitous, only two of the remaining 32 genera have more than
10 species and all have relatively restricted geographic ranges (Frost 1985,
2011). Bufonidae
comprises the true toad: they are best known for their thick, warty skin
appearances and have prominent skin glands especially a pair of parotoid glands on the back of their heads. In the context of Uttarakhand, western
Himalayan anuran fauna comprises three species of the family Bufonidae, namely, Duttaphyrnus
himalayanus (Günther, 1864), D. melanostictus (Schneider, 1799), and D. stomaticus (Lutken, 1864).
Food is an important item for any living
organism. The body requires the range of
nutrition in organism’s diet to keep all organs alive and in the correct
balance. Diet is a also crucial part of
the natural history of an animal, because not only does it reveal the source of
the animal’s energy for growth, reproduction and survival (Zug et al. 2001;
Norval et al. 2014), but it also indicates part of the ecological roles such as
food webs, resource portioning and ecological energetic. Anurans are thought to be opportunistic
predators with their diets just reflecting the availability of food of
appropriate size. Different studies
suggest that food is a vital factor that explains the structure of anuran
communities in different parts of the world (Duellman
1967; Inger & Colwell 1977; Duellman & Toft
1979; Toft 1980; Clcek & Mermer
2007). The stomach contents of many Bufonidae species have been examined in the past to
determine their role in an ecosystem (Yu & Guo 2012; Sulieman et al. 2016).
Although the Uttarakhand region of the western
Himalayan ecosystem embraces all types of amphibians on account of its varied
climate, topographical, altitudinal and vegetational conditions, information
about diets of amphibians is very scarce and the biology of most amphibians is
poorly known from this region (Ray 1995; Bahuguna
& Bhutia 2010).
Therefore, the present work on a food spectrum analysis of three toad
species fills the lacuna that would be helpful in understanding their feeding
habitat and ecological role in Uttarakhand, the western Himalaya. Our analysis
was aimed at (1) identifying and determining small invertebrate prey, (2)
examining importance of the relative index of three toad species, (3) comparing
the food spectrum and niche breadth among three toad species from its natural
range.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
For the present study fieldwork was carried out in
several localities, viz., Dayara (S1) (2,800m), Triyuginarayan (S2) (2,300m), Badhani
tal (S3) (2,089m), Joshimath
(S4) (2,240m), and Sem Mukhem
(S5) (2,200m) (Fig. 1). Samples were
studied in breeding seasons, i.e., March–September from 2014-–2017 at evening
hours (18.00–23.00 h) in their natural habitats such as pools, ponds and in the
vicinity of shaded mountain streams and so on.
It was based on nocturnal visual encounter survey (Heyer
et al. 2014).
Toads were collected manually in their habitats and
stomach flushing was carried out immediately.
Flushing was applied as soon as possible after capturing anurans, in
order to precede digestion (Secor & Faulkner
2002; Sole et al. 2005). The subsequent
immediate release of all specimens into their habitats ensured that the current
activity of the treated specimens was not essentially disturbed by the
stomach-flushing. The stomach contents
were picked up with forceps and fixed in 70% ethanol in a vial. All contents were analyzed
under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZX 7).
Identifications of food items were possible up to the order level with
the exception of Hymenoptera, which was classified as Formicidae
and non Formicidae and the rest of the items have
been categorized as ‘miscellaneous’ (for broken materials) or unidentified
(Gibb & Oseto 2006; Chowdhary et al. 2016). The food contents were then identified with
the aid of keys provided by Ward & Whipple (1959). The food preferences of the three toad
species were analyzed in terms of number, volume and
frequency of occurrence. Prey’s length
and width were evaluated with a digital vernier caliper (Aerospace) to the nearest 0.1mm accuracy. Preserved items were measured and their
volume (in mm3) was calculated using the formula for ellipsoid
bodies (Griffiths & Mylotte 1987).
4 L
W
V = –– π (––)
(––)
3 2
2
where, L=prey length, W=prey width
We obtained the frequency of occurrence of each prey
categories in the diet dividing the number of stomachs which contained that
category by the total number of stomach analyzed,
with the exception of empty ones.
The index of relative importance (IRI) was employed as
a measure that reduces bias in the description data of animal dietary items (Pinkas et al. 1971).
IRI = (N %+V %) F%
Where N%=numeric percentage, V%=volumetric percentage,
F=frequency of percentage
In order to compare the habitat trophic niche breadth
the standardized Shannon-Weaver entropy index J’ was used (Shannon & Weaver
1949).
J’=H’/ln(n)
whereby,
H’=- Σpi ln(pi)
pi is the relative abundance of each prey categories,
calculated as the proportion of prey items of given categories to the total
number of prey items (n) in all compared species. To make H’ index number more biological
sense, it was converted into the effective number of species (ENS), which is
the real biodiversity and allows to compare the biodiversity with the other
community containing equally-common species of exp(H’),
the ENS.
The niche breadth was obtained by Levins’
standardized index (Krebs 1999), in which the value of Levins’
measure (B) was first obtained by the following equation
B=1/Σpi2
where, pi =fraction of item i
in the diet
Levins’
measure was then standardized on a scale of 0-1.0 by the following equation:
BA= (B-1) /(n-1)
where, BA corresponding to Levins’ standardized niche breadth ranges from 0 (narrowest
amplitude), when there is exclusive use of a single resource categories, to 1
(broadest amplitude), when all categories are equally used (Krebs 1999); the
species is considered to have a wide niche breadth when BA
≥0.5.
RESULTS
The anurans used in this study, consisted of 84
specimens of three toad species. We
recorded 1,222 prey items from 27 invertebrate categories (Table 1). Because toad samples were stomach-flushed
within three hours after capture, few of the food materials were totally
intact, most were partially digested.
Parts with heavily sclerotised cuticle remained undigested so that
heads, thorax, abdominal segments and single wings of arthropods allowed an
identification of the item, at least to order level. Identified diet items belonging to the order
Hymenoptera were categorized into Formicidae and non Formicidae. Mostly
male Bufo specimens seem to stop feeding
during courtship so some of them had an empty stomach (Table 1).
The most numerous prey taxon on the basis of number
percent in the diet was Formicidae in all three toad
species. The predominant food in terms
of volume was Orthoptera in D. himalayanus and
D. melanostictus while it was Lepidoptera in D.
stomaticus.
The index of relative importance (IRI) was maximum for Formicidae in the three toad species (Table 2; Fig.
2). Based on the Shannon-Wiener
function, D. melanostictus had the highest
prey diversity followed by D. himalayanus and D.
stomaticus (Table 3). As for the niche breadth, Duttaphrynus
melanostictus also had the broadest dietary niche
breadth, followed by, D. himalayanus and D.
stomaticus, in that order (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
D. himalayanus is a large toad distributed in the high altitudinal
region of the Himalaya, while D. melanostictus
and D. stomaticus are found up to 2,500m but
prefer lowland plains and agricultural as well as urban areas in Uttarakhand
(Husain 2015). The inter-locality
variations and similarities in the diets of these three toad species suggest
that these are generalist predators that lack an apparent food preference, and
that their diets are most likely dependent on what type of prey is available in
inhabited areas, but prey diversity may vary among regions. As a result, D. melanostictus can be expected to have access to a
greater variety of prey types. D. melanostictus was the only species that preyed upon all
about the prey orders recorded and shown rich prey species biodiversity index
by Shannon-Wiener measure of niche breadth (H’=2.76). In spite of this, due to the dominance of Formicidae in its diet, D. stomaticus
has a lower prey diversity index (H’=2.20) than other toad species. D. himalayanus
has intermediate value of prey diversity (H’=2.37) (Table 3). Toft (1980, 1981) stated that many species
from the family Bufonidae are specialists,
characterized by the preference of some arthropods (often Formicidae). Levins’ measure of
niche breadth does not allow for the possibility that resources vary in
abundance. In many cases, ecologists
should allow for the fact that some resources are very abundant and common, and
other resources are uncommon or rare.
Levin’s measure of niche breadth (BA) calculated for the three
species of toads are less than 0.5 in our study which shows the opportunistic
feeding behavior of the studied toad species. Study of Levin’s measure of niche breadth (BA)
in D. melanostictus from southwestern Taiwan
also showed resemblance (Norval et al. 2014).
Toad feeds exclusively on the ground on a wide variety
of terrestrial food in which arthropods are dominant (Mercy 1999; Hirai &
Matsui 2000; Kidera et al. 2008; Menin
et al. 2015). Our study showed that
arthropods and invertebrates including other prey groups are the main
constituents of the diet. This study
revealed consistency in the presence of a few dominant taxonomic groups of prey
in these species, but differences in diversity of the occurrence of other prey
items. This may be due to the fact that
the diets of these toads are defined by prey availability more than by active
choice. Previously, it had been reported
that a higher frequency of prey and presence of different prey sizes in the
stomachs of some toad species were due to the availability of prey in the
habitat of the predator (Guix 1993; Sulieman et al.
2016).
Toads might be classified as an ant specialist and
wide forager, this classification is justified by having slow moving
locomotion, possessing toxins in the parotid glands, prefer small preys, and
high frequency of ants founds per stomach (Ferreira & Teixeira 2009). Ants and several beetle groups are
unpalatable to many predators due to formic acids and quinones, respectively (Zug
& Zug 1979). Therefore,
specialization on those preys might confer certain advantages. Predators specialized in eating unpalatable
preys decrease food competition with other predators. In our study, Formicidae
was the most common prey category consumed maximum in comparison to other prey
categories. This is due to their
abundance and wide range of habitats.
Zug et al. (2001) and Damasceno (2005) also
reported that ants are common and the basic food content of toads with low
energy value due to a large amount of exoskeleton when compared to other
insects such as larvae of some insects (e.g., caterpillars); however, the
studied toad species readily feeds on arthropods, such as ants, beetles,
millipedes and centipedes that contain noxious chemicals. Toads actually incorporate the noxious chemicals
produced by such type of arthropods into their own defensive mechanisms (Daly
2007). Therefore, the kind of food
spectrum is very important for the composition of the toad poison and its
defensive activity also.
Observations of stomach content analysis of adult
toads revealed that the diet composed of insects of the orders Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Isoptera,
Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera, and Diptera. Some of these are major pests of an
agricultural crop of this region. Toads
feed on these harmful pests and help in controlling them. Apart from insects, the diet also includes
annelids, crustaceans and some plant materials.
Plant matter such as stem of Doab Grass Cynodon
dactylon was observed in the diet of D. himalayanus and plant seeds in D. melanostictus and D. stomaticus. Similar observations for the intake of plant
matter in Bufonidae were also made by Winston (1955)
and Tyler (1958) as they had recorded the ingestion of the calyces of Morinda lucida by D.
regularis and presence of the flowers of Polygonum
amphibium and grass in the stomachs of Rana esculanta, respectively. Although the immediate most used explanation
would imply accidental ingestion of vegetation while foraging for invertebrate
preys, the idea that anurans may actually select plant matters as food items
must be considered. According to
Anderson et al. (1999) and Santos et al. (2004), plant contents may help in the
elimination of intestinal parasites; provide roughage to assist in grinding up
arthropod exoskeletons, and an additional source of water and nutrients.
CONCLUSION
The present findings indicate a high percentage of
terrestrial food items found in three Bufonids reaffirms that D. himalayanus, D. melanostictus,
and D. stomaticus are natural predator of
various insect pests especially those which are considered as serious crop
pests in this region. Diverse food items
found in the bufonids’ stomachs illustrate the ability to utilize a wide
variety of prey taxa in the high altitude region of the western Himalaya also.
Thus, they play a very important role in ecological balance as well as the
economy of nature. This is the first
unique report on feeding of these toads from Uttarakhand region of the western
Himalaya. Information pertaining to the
food spectrum analysis contributes to understanding the ecological roles in the
ecosystem and used as a baseline data for future successful amphibian
conservation and management programs in the Himalayan ecosystem.
Table 1. Prey details for all three bufonid species in
studied sites of Uttarakhand, western Himalaya.
Total sample size |
Duttaphrynus himalayanus |
Duttaphrynus melanostictus |
Duttaphrynus stomaticus |
Individual with empty stomach |
7 |
7 |
8 |
Total prey taxa present |
24 |
25 |
19 |
Total no. of prey |
376 |
322 |
524 |
Average no. of prey items/sample |
22 |
13 |
20 |
Maximum no. of prey/sample |
26 |
19 |
25 |
Terrestrial preys (%) |
95.73 |
96.89 |
94.46 |
Aquatic preys (%) |
4.26 |
3.10 |
5.53 |
Maximum length of prey items (mm) |
26 |
26 |
22 |
Minimum length of prey item (mm) |
9 |
4 |
2 |
Table 2. Shannon-Wiener
function of niche breadth (H’), evenness measure (J’), Levin’s measure of niche
breath (B’), and standardized Levin’s measure of niche breath (BA)
of prey items of studied bufonid species in Uttarakhand.
Species |
Shannon-Wiener function |
Levin’s measure |
||
H’(*) |
J’ |
B |
BA |
|
D. himalayanus |
2.37 (10.69) |
0.757 |
7.60 |
0.300 |
D. melanostictus |
2.76 (15.79) |
0.859 |
11.52 |
0.438 |
D. stomaticus |
2.20 (9.02) |
0.748 |
4.86 |
0.214 |
Table 3.
Dietary items of the D. himalayanus, D. melanostictus, and D. stomaticus
with their respective absolute values and relative abundance (N and N%),
frequency (F and F%), volume (V and V%) and Importance of relative index (IRI).
|
Duttaphrynus himalayanus |
Duttaphrynus melanostictus |
Duttaphrynus stomaticus |
|||||||||
Prey Taxa |
N (%) |
V (%) |
F (%) |
IRI |
N (%) |
V (%) |
F (%) |
IRI |
N (%) |
V (%) |
F (%) |
IRI |
Class: Clitellata |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haplotaxida |
4 (1.06) |
209.34 (5.5) |
3 (2.65) |
17.42 |
9 (2.8) |
226.08 (3.6) |
4 (2.7) |
17.43 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Class: Diplopoda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spirobolida |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 (1.55) |
117.75 (1.9) |
3 (2.03) |
6.99 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Class: Chilopoda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scolopendromorpha |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.31) |
242.82 (3.9) |
1 (0.68) |
2.86 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Class: Malacostraca |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isopoda |
9 (2.39) |
66.98 (1.76) |
3 (2.65) |
11.02 |
3 (0.93) |
32.15 (0.5) |
2 (1.35) |
1.96 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Class: Insecta |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orthoptera |
10 (2.66) |
1360 (35.74) |
7 (6.19) |
237.87 |
19 (5.9) |
1360.67 (22) |
9 (6.08) |
169.38 |
18 (3.44) |
736.85 (22.85) |
11 (6.11) |
160.61 |
Mantodea |
5 (1.33) |
84.78 (2.23) |
4 (3.54) |
12.59 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Hemiptera |
10 (2.66) |
65.41 (1.72) |
4 (3.54) |
15.5 |
13 (4.04) |
445.2 (7.2) |
9 (6.08) |
68.25 |
21 (4.01) |
58.61 (1.82) |
13 (7.22) |
42.07 |
Coleoptera |
48 (12.77) |
267.94 (7.04) |
10 (8.85) |
175.32 |
46 (14.29) |
183.16 (3) |
23 (15.54) |
268 |
43 (8.21) |
169.56 (5.26) |
19 (10.56) |
142.11 |
Coleoptera larvae |
21 (5.59) |
94.2 (2.48) |
7 (6.19) |
49.96 |
31 (9.63) |
267.94 (4.3) |
17 (11.49) |
160.27 |
29 (5.53) |
50.24 (1.56) |
14 (7.78) |
55.16 |
Lepidoptera |
6 (1.6) |
66.98 (1.76) |
4 (3.54) |
11.89 |
17 (5.28) |
602.88 (9.7) |
8 (5.41) |
81.12 |
13 (2.48) |
942 (29.21) |
5 (2.78) |
88.02 |
Lepidoptera larvae |
3 (0.8) |
66.98 (1.76) |
2 (1.77) |
4.53 |
9 (2.8) |
435.41 (7) |
5 (3.38) |
33.19 |
11 (2.1) |
468.9 (14.54) |
6 (3.33) |
55.46 |
Hymenoptera |
29 (7.71) |
538.51 (14.15) |
8 (7.08) |
154.77 |
12 (3.73) |
37.68 (0.6) |
8 (5.41) |
23.45 |
17 (3.24) |
104.66 (3.25) |
8 (4.44) |
28.84 |
(Non Formicidae) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formicidae |
101 (26.86) |
47.1 (1.24) |
13 (11.5) |
323.25 |
61 (18.94) |
83.73 (1.4) |
21 (14.19) |
287.91 |
221 (42.18) |
75.36 (2.34) |
26 (14.44) |
642.95 |
Thysanura |
4 (1.06) |
18.84 (0.5) |
2 (1.77) |
2.75 |
1 (0.31) |
37.68 (0.6) |
1 (0.68) |
0.62 |
9 (1.72) |
32.94 (1.02) |
9 (5) |
13.69 |
Trichoptera |
3 (0.8) |
100.48 (2.64) |
2 (1.77) |
6.09 |
3 (0.93) |
263.76 (4.3) |
2 (1.35) |
7.01 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Homoptera |
11 (2.93) |
205.14 (5.39) |
6 (5.31) |
44.18 |
9 (2.8) |
183.16 (3) |
3 (2.03) |
11.67 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Isoptera |
62 (16.49) |
125.6 (3.3) |
8 (7.08) |
140.11 |
9 (2.8) |
10.46 (0.2) |
2 (1.35) |
4.01 |
33 (6.3) |
10.46 (0.32) |
7 (3.89) |
25.75 |
Diptera |
9 (2.39) |
32.96 (0.87) |
5 (4.42) |
14.41 |
11 (3.42) |
28.26 (0.5) |
4 (2.7) |
10.48 |
14 (2.67) |
8.63 (0.27) |
8 (4.44) |
13.06 |
Diptera larvae |
2 (0.53) |
18.84 (0.5) |
2 (1.77) |
1.81 |
14 (4.35) |
6.28 (0.1) |
3 (2.03) |
9.02 |
22 (4.2) |
2.09 (0.06) |
10 (5.56) |
23.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dermaptera |
4 (1.06) |
61.23 (1.61) |
3 (2.65) |
7.09 |
13 (4.04) |
56.52 (0.9) |
1 (0.68) |
3.35 |
13 (2.48) |
14.13 (0.44) |
8 (4.44) |
12.97 |
Ephemeroptera |
3 (0.8) |
20.93 (0.55) |
2 (1.77) |
2.39 |
2 (0.62) |
25.12 (0.4) |
1 (0.68) |
0.69 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Odonata |
6 (1.6) |
200.96 (5.28) |
4 (3.54) |
24.36 |
1 (0.31) |
1356 (21.9) |
1 (0.68) |
14.99 |
3 (0.57) |
235.2 (7.29) |
2 (1.11) |
8.74 |
Neuroptera |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 (0.62) |
14.13 (0.2) |
2 (1.35) |
1.15 |
2 (0.38) |
18.84 (0.58) |
1 (0.56) |
0.54 |
Mecoptera |
1 (0.27) |
18.84 (0.5) |
1 (0.88) |
0.68 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.19) |
42.39 (1.31) |
1 (0.56) |
0.84 |
Class: Arachnida |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Araneae |
19 (5.05) |
32.37 (0.85) |
6 (5.31) |
31.33 |
16 (4.97) |
23.55 (0.4) |
7 (4.73) |
25.3 |
37 (7.06) |
28.26 (0.88) |
22 (12.22) |
97.01 |
Opiliones |
1 (0.27) |
58.61 (1.54) |
1 (0.88) |
1.6 |
7 (2.17) |
58.61 (0.9) |
5 (3.38) |
10.53 |
4 (0.76) |
5.23 (0.16) |
2 (1.11) |
1.03 |
Unidentified |
0 |
14.13 (0.37) |
3 (2.65) |
|
|
33.49 (0.5) |
4 (2.7) |
|
|
216.66 (6.72) |
4 (2.22) |
|
Plant matter |
5 (1.33) |
28.26 (0.74) |
3 (2.65) |
5.5 |
8 (2.48) |
65.41 (1.1) |
2 (1.35) |
4.78 |
13 (2.48) |
4.18 (0.13) |
4 (2.22) |
5.8 |
Total |
376 (100) |
3805.41 (100) |
113 (100) |
1296.423 |
322 (100) |
6197.9 (100) |
148 (100) |
1224.4 |
524 (100) |
3225.19 (100) |
180 (100) |
1418.36 |
Figure
figures & images – click here
REFERENCES
Anderson, A.M., D.A. Haukos
& J.T. Anderson (1999). Diet
composition of three anurans from the Playa Wetlands of northwest Texas. Copeia 1999: 515–520.
Bahuguna, A. & P. Bhutia (2010).
Amphibia. Fauna of Uttarakhand.
State Fauna Series18 (1):505-532. Published Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata.
Chowdhary, A.K., V. Bahuguna,
G. Bhatt, S. Singh, S. Bhardwaj & S.N. Bahuguna
(2016). Diet composition of Indian
burrowing frog Sphaerotheca breviceps (Anura: Dicroglossidae) in Uttarakhand region of western Himalaya, Proceedings
of the Zoological Society 71(2): 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-016-0195-6
Clcek, K. & A. Mermer (2007).
Food composition of the Marsh frog, Rana ridibunda Pallas, 1771, in Thrace. Turkish Journal
of Zoology 31: 83-–90.
Daly, J.D., J.M. Wilham,
T.F. Spande, H.M. Garraffo,
R.R. Gil, G.L. Silva & M. Vaira (2007). Alkaloids in bufoinid toads
(Melanophryniscus): Temporal and geographic
determinants for two Argentinian species. Journal of Chemical Ecology 33:
871–887.
Damasceno, R.P. (2005). Uso de recursosalimentares e eletividadenadieta
de umaassembleia de anurosterricolas
das dunas do medio Rio Sao Francisco.
Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Duellman, W.E. (1967). Social organization in the mating call of some
neotropical anurans. The American Midland Naturalist Journal 77:
156–163.
Duellman, W.E. & A.C. Toft (1979). Anurans from the Serranía
de Sira, Amazonian Perú: Taxonomy and biogeography. Herpetologica
35: 60–70.
Duellman, W.E. & L. Trueb
(1986). Biology of Amphibians. McGraw-Hill, New York, xvii+670pp.
Ferreira, R.B. & R.L. Teixeira (2009). Feeding pattern and use of reproductive habitat of
the Striped Toad Rhinella crucifer (Anura: Bufonidae) from southeastern Brazil. Acta Herpetologica
4(2): 125–134.
Frost, D.R. (1985). Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and
Geographic Reference. Allen Press and the Association of Systematics
Collections, Lawrence, Kansas, 732pp.
Frost, D. R. (2011). Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference.
Version 5.5. (31 January 2011). Electronic Database. New York, USA: American Museum of Natural History.
Available from https://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/ (Accessed 4
February 2018).
Griffiths, R.A. & J.V. Mylotte
(1987). Microhabitat selection and feeding
relations of smooth and warty newts, Triturus
vulgaris and T. cristatus, at an upland
pond in mid-Wales. Ecography 10(1): 1–7.
Guix, J.C. (1993). Habitat y alimentacion de Bufo paracnemis en una region semiarida
del nordeste de Brasil, durante el periodo de reproduccion. Revista
Espanola de Herpetologia 7: 65–73.
Heyer, R., M.A. Donnelly, M. Foster & R. Mcdiarmid (2014). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity:
standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution.
Hirai, T. & M. Matsui (2000). Feeding habits of the Pond Frog, Rana nigromaculata, inhabiting rice fields in Kyoto, Japan. Copeia 4:940-947.
Husain, A. (2015). Amphibians of Doon Valley (Dehradun, Uttarakhand)
with their Systematics, Distribution, Ecology, Conservation status and threats,
In Rawat. M., Dookia. S., Sivaperuman,
Chandrakasan (Eds), Aquatic
Ecosystem: Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation edited, 217-229.
Inger, R.F. & K.R. Colwell (1977). Organization of contiguous communities of amphibians
and reptiles in Thailand. Ecological Monographs 47: 229-253.
Kidera, N., N. Tandavanitj, D. Oh,
N. Nakanishi, A. Satoh, T. Denda, M. Izawa & H.
Ota (2008). Dietary habits of the Introduced
Cane toad Bufo marinus (Amphibia: Bufonidae) on Ishigakijima,
southern Ryukyus, Japan. Pacific Science 62: 423–430.
Krebs C.J. (1999). Ecological methodology. 2nd edition.
Benjamin/Cummings, The University of California, 624pp.
Lynch, J.D. (1973). The transition from archaic to advanced frogs, pp.
133–182. In: Vial, J.L. (ed). Evolutionary Biology
of the Anurans: Contemporary Research on Major Problems. University of
Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, xii+470pp.
Menin, M., R.S. Santos, R.E. Borgas
& L. Piatti (2015). Notes on the
diet of seven terrestrial frogs in three agro
ecosystems and forest remnants in northwestern São
Paulo State, Brazil. Herpetology Notes 8: 401–405.
Mercy, M. (1999). Studies on some aspects of the biology and ecology of
the common Indian toad Bufo melanostictus Schneider (Class Amphibia; Order Anura). (On-line). Mahatma Gandhi University Online Theses
Library.
Norval, G., S.C. Huang, J.J. Mao, S. Goldberg &
Y.J. Yang (2014). Notes on the
diets of five amphibian species from southwestern Taiwan. Alytes
30: 69–77.
Pinkas, L., M.S. Oliphant & I.L.K. Iverson (1971). Food habits of Albacore, Bluefin Tuna, and Bonito in
California waters. Fish Bulletin, 152. Sacramento: State of California,
Department of Fish and Game.
Ray, P. (1995). Amphibia, In: Fauna of Western Himalaya (V.P.)
Himalayan Ecosystem Series Part I, zoological Survey of India. Published by
Director, Zoological Survey of India, 151–158.
Reig, O.A. (1958). Proposiciones para una nueva macrosistematica de los anuros. Nota preliminar. Physis 21:
109–118.
Santos, E.M., A.V. Almeida & S.D. Vasconcelos
(2004). Feeding habits of six anuran
(Amphibia: Anura) species in a rainforest fragment in
northeastern Brazil. Iheringia.
SérieZoologia. Porto Alegre 94(4): 433–438.
Secor, S.M. & C.A. Faulkner (2002). Effects of meal size, meal type, body temperature, and
body size on the specific dynamic action of the marine toad, Bufo marinus. Physiological and
Biochemical Zoology 75: 557–571.
Sole, M., O. Beckmann, B. Pelz,
A. Kwet & W. Engels (2005). Stomach-flushing for diet analysis in anurans: an
improved protocol evaluated in a case study in Araucaria forests, southern
Brazil. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 40: 23–28.
Sulieman, Y., T. Pengsakul
& A. Azzam (2016). Diet compostion of the subdesert toad,
Amietophrynus Xeros
(Anura: Bufonidae) in
Sudan, north Africa. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 11(2):
350–354.
Toft, C.A. (1980). Feeding ecology of thirteen syntopic
species of anurans in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia
45: 131–141.
Toft, C.A. (1981). Feeding ecology of Panamanian litter anurans:
patterns in diet and foraging mode. The Journal of Herpetology 15:
139–144.
Tyler, M.J. (1958). Diet and feeding habits in the edible frog (Rana
esculenta Linnaeus). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
131: 583–595.
Ward, H.B. & C.G. Whipple (1959). Freshwater Biology 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Winston, R.M. (1955). Identification and ecology of the toad Duttaphrynus regularis.Copeia1955:
293-302.
Yu, T. & Y. Guo (2012). Trophic ecology and microhabitat utilization by the Bufo gargarizans, Rana
guentheri and Rana limnocharis
in southwestern China, Zoologia 29 (1): 54–58.
Zug, G.R, L.J. Vitt &
J.P. Caldwell (2001). Herpetology.
An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 2nd edition.
Academic Press, San Diego, 630pp.
Zug, G.R. & P.B. Zug (1979). The marine toad, Bufo
marinus: A natural history resume of native populations. Smithson
Contributions to Zoology 284: 1–58.