Herpetology Notes, volume 12: 841-845 (2019) (published online on 12 August 2019)

Diet of hylaedactyla (Cope, 1868) (Anura: ) from an urban area in southern Amapá, eastern Amazon

Patrick R. Sanches1, Fillipe Pedroso-Santos1, and Carlos Eduardo Costa-Campos1,*

Abstract. We describe the diet composition of based on the analysis of the stomach contents of 30 specimens from an urban area in southern Amapá State, eastern Amazon, . We found 49 items belonging to 10 prey categories. The most important prey categories were Hymenoptera (ants) (IVI = 33.2) and Hemiptera (IVI = 13.8). The correlation between snout-vent length and volume of prey was not significant. Adenomera hylaedactyla has a narrow niche breadth and their diet comprises a wide variety of items similar to prey consumed by other species of Adenomera, being ants an important resource for species within this group.

Keywords. Anura, diet, niche breadth, prey availability

Introduction these toxins in their skin (Biavati et al., 2004; Wells, 2007). Most anurans are generalist predators and feed Species of the Adenomera marmorata group are small mainly on arthropods, as well as on other invertebrates widely distributed throughout South America and vertebrates (Duellman and Trueb, 1994; Solé within the Amazon basin. The Napo Tropical Bullfrog et al., 2010). Usually anuran diet is determined by Adenomera hylaedactyla (Cope, 1868) is a nocturnal evolutionary, behavioral and morphological traits that included in the A. marmorata group and is widely influence the feeding strategies and selection of prey distributed in Amazonian through the Guianas, type (Duellman and Trueb, 1994; Wells, 2007; Solé et in , , , , al., 2009; Lima et al., 2010). As result, anurans exhibit and Brazil. It can be found occupying areas of open a plasticity in trophic chains, acting both as predator vegetation, such as stream and river edges. Also, it is and as prey (Toledo et al., 2007; Oliveira et al., 2013). generally associated with primary and secondary , As pointed out by Toft (1981) anurans can exist in forest edges and savannah (Kokubum and Sousa, 2008; a specialist-generalist continuum concerning prey Frost, 2018). specificity. Within this continuum, major anurans are Knowledge on the ecology of Amazonian anurans is considered generalists and opportunistic in the use of still scarce, given the great diversity present. Thereby food resources (Duellman and Trueb, 1994). However, studies related to natural history also have conservational some taxa, such as Dendrobatidae, evolved a specialized aspects, helping to identify environmental conditions diet associated with the purposeful uptake of alkaloids and consequences of alterations, besides adding from of certain groups of arthropods, in order to retain a deep knowledge on life history of the species that compose the Amazonian fauna (Azevedo-Ramos and Gallati, 2001; Becker et al., 2010). The feeding habits of many species, including frogs of the A. marmoratus group remains poorly understood. In the present study we investigated the diet of A. hylaedactyla from an urban 1 Universidade Federal do Amapá, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Laboratório de Herpetologia, Campus area in southern Amapá, eastern Amazon, and calculate Marco Zero do Equador, 68.903-419, Macapá, AP, Brazil. niche breadth and an index of relative importance for * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] each prey category. 842 Patrick R. Sanches et al.

Material and methods We calculated the amplitude of trophic niche through Levins’ Trophic Niche Amplitude Index (B) describe in Fieldwork was carried out in a forest fragment Pianka (1986), in which p is the numerical or volumetric surrounded by disturbed areas in the municipality of proportion of prey category i, and n is the number of Santana (0.03583º S, 51.15917º W, Datum WGS84, 26 m a.s.l.), Amapá State, Brazil. The forest fragment prey categories. comprises secondary forest, flooded forest and deforested areas (Drummod et al., 2008). According Köppen-Geiger classification for areas of Equatorial climate the annual precipitation is approximately 2850 mm concentrated between February and May, with average of about 400 mm per month, and average annual For standardized Levins’ index (Bsta) values ranging temperature ranging from 25.8 to 29.0 °C (Alvares et from 0 - 0.50 we considered the species as a specialist, al., 2013). and 0.51 - 1.0 we considered as a generalist feeder. We We collected 23 males (mean snout vent length [SVL] analyzed niche breadth using the software Ecological ± SD = 16.66 ± 1.53 mm), and 7 females (mean SVL Methodology (Krebs, 1999). ± SD = 19.52 ± 0.96 mm) of A. hylaedactyla along We performed a Spearman correlation test to the edges of a small stream during the dry season in determine the existence of correlation between snout- seasonally flooded depressions. We carried out three vent length (SVL) and body weight with the volume nocturnal inventories between November 22 and 24, of the largest prey for each individual. Statistical tests 2017 through active visual search and auditory surveys were performed using BioEstat 5.0 software (Ayres et (Crump et al., 1994), starting around 20:00h. al., 2007). Sexual differences in body size (snout-vent We euthanized the specimens in situ with using 5% length) were tested with the Student t-test. Analyzes xylocaine, soon after we fixed in 10% formalin to stop used to quantify the amplitude of the ecological niche of the digestion processes. The specimens collected were the species were carried out in the program Ecosim 7.0 stored in 70% alcohol and had they stomachs dissected (Gotelli and Entsminger, 2001). All statistical analysis to access the food content (Heyer et al., 1994). We were performed with a significance level of α = 0.05. extracted the stomach contents of anurans through a ventral incision and stored all contents found in 70% Results alcohol. Afterwards we identified the prey categories at the level of order and family (Formicidae) under stereo We collected 30 specimens of A. hylaedactyla, with microscopes with the aid of dichotomy keys provided SVL ranging from 13.1 to 19.1 mm (16.66 ± 1.53 mm) by Rafael et al. (2012). and 17.8 to 20.7 mm (19.52 ± 0.96 mm) for males and For each identified prey category, we calculated females, respectively. The body mass of males varied the number, volume and frequency of occurrence in from 0.1 to 1.0 g (0.5 ± 0.2 g) and females varied from absolute and percentage values. We calculated volume 0.6 to 1.2 g (0.8 ± 0.2 g). Six individuals had an empty by using the measure of length and weight of each stomach, of which five were male and one female. Adult prey item found and we applied the Ellipsoid Volume males were significantly smaller than adult females in Formula: where l = the prey length and w = the prey terms of SVL (t = -4.2896; p < 0.001), and body mass (t width (Magnusson et al., 2003). = -3.7208, p = 0.0004). We found forty-nine items belonging to 10 categories of prey (Table 1). The most numerically abundant prey were Formicidae (44.89%) and Acari (12.24%), while the most representative regarding volume were Hemiptera We assessed the importance value index (IVI) of each (28.61%) and Araneae (22.80%). The importance prey in the diet using the sum of the percentages of value index showed that the diet of A. hylaedactyla was number (N%), frequency (F%) and volume (V%) (cf. dominated by the prey taxa Formicidae (IVI = 33.2) Gadsden and Palácios-Orona, 1997). and Hemiptera (IVI = 13.8). The prey volume has not increased with SVL or weight, as our analysis showed no significant correlation between SVL and volume of prey (rs = 0.0051, p = 0.9821, Figure 1) and weight and Table 1. Prey consumed by Adenomera hylaedactyla (n = 30) in a várzea forest, municipality of Santana, Diet of AdenomeraAmapá, Brazil. hylaedactyla N = number; from F =an frequency urban area of prey; in eastern V = volume Amazon of prey; IVI = importance value index. Values 843 and their relative percentages

Table 1. Prey consumed by Adenomera hylaedactyla (n = 30) in a várzea forest, municipality of Santana, Amapá, Brazil. N = number; F = frequency of prey; V = volume of prey; IVI = importance value index. Values and their relative percentages

Prey N N% F F% V V% IVI Acari 6 12.2 5 11.1 2.35 1.4 8.2 Araneae 3 6.1 3 6.7 39.26 22.8 11.9 Coleoptera 5 10.2 5 11.1 15.12 8.8 10.1 Coleoptera Larvae 2 4.1 2 4.4 27.58 16.1 8.9 Collembola 3 6.1 3 6.7 4.72 2.7 5.2 Diptera 2 4.1 2 4.4 3.58 2.1 3.5 Diptera Larvae 2 4.1 1 2.3 2.56 1.5 2.6 Hemiptera 3 6.1 3 6.7 49.28 28.6 13.8 Hymenoptera 1 2.1 1 2.2 9.73 5.6 3.3 Formicidae 22 44.9 20 44.4 17.98 10.4 33.3 Total 49 100 45 100 172.21 100 100.8

volume of prey (rs = -0.0865, p = 0.7019, Figure 2). The hylaedactyla (Vitt and Caldwell, 1994), in general the standardized Levins’ index (Bsta) was 0.34. diet seems to be similar among the species. Diet composition of A. hylaedactyla revealed Discussion Formicidae as the most important prey category and has Five previous studies have examined the stomach already been observed in the diet of A. thomei (Rebouças content of Adenomera species, A. hylaedactyla (Vitt and and Solé, 2015) and A. marmorata (Almeida-Gomes et Caldwell, 1994), A. andreae (Vitt and Caldwell, 1994; al., 2007). These results suggest that ants (Formicidae) Sabagh et al., 2012), A. marmorata (Almeida-Gomes form a part or the majority of diet of anuran species et al., 2007; Santos-Pereira et al., 2015) and A. thomei restricted just to leaf litter (Sabagh et al., 2012; Santos- (Rebouças and Solé, 2015). Although the amount of Pereira et al., 2015). On the other hand, in a study prey items recorded in this study for A. hyaledactyla conducted by Vitt and Caldwell (1994) the dietary appears to be low with 10 prey items, compared to 12 composition of A. hylaedactyla reported partially differs prey items found in A. marmorata (Almeida-Gomes et from that observed in our study, with Isopetra and al., 2007), 16 prey items in A. thomei (Rebouças and Araneae being the dominant prey. A higher proportion Solé, 2015), 20 prey items found in A. andreae and A. of these prey taxa and differential consumption between

Figure 1. Relationship between snout-vent length (SVL) of Figure 2. Relationship between weight of Adenomera Adenomera hylaedactyla specimens with volume of prey hylaedactyla specimens with volume of prey consumed. consumed. 844 Patrick R. Sanches et al. these species reflects differences in availability of this in A. hylaedactyla. This fact may be interpreted as an prey type in the environment (Caldwell, 1996; Solé et ontogenetic change in diet, which has also been described al., 2009). in some leptodactylids by Lima and Magnusson (2000). Leptodactylids are generalists and feed mostly on soft- The lack of significant correlation in our results may bodied larger prey (Maneyro et al., 2004; Rodrigues be expected for frogs as A. hylaedactyla that prefer to et al., 2004; Sanabria et al., 2005; De-Carvalho et al., ingest on a large variety of smaller prey items than those 2008; Solé et al., 2009), but this is not the case for A. who feed on fewer but larger prey items, as observed in hylaedactyla and other species in the genus Adenomera. some species in the genus (e.g. Maneyro In central Amazonia, A. andreae had a high proportion et al., 2004; Ferreira et al., 2007). Additionally, lack of ants in their diet (Sabagh et al., 2012), so as observed of correlations between predator size and prey volume in A. marmorata in Southern Brazil (Santos-Pereira et was observed in A. thomei from a rubber tree plantation al., 2015) and A. thomei in Northeast Brazil (Rebouças in southern Bahia, Brazil (Rebouças and Solé, 2015), and Solé, 2015). It seems to be a pattern in the diet of the indicating that a large size did not imply in an increase A. marmorata species group, which was unexpected for in the size of preys ingested. leptodactylid species, considered as non-ant specialist We conclude that A. hylaedactyla, like other species guild (Toft, 1980a,b). of the A. marmorata group, had Formicidae as an The consumption of ants and mites in high proportions important resource in their diet, which differs from the is remarkable in Adenomera species (Almeida-Gomes et diet of major species in Leptodactylidae. In addition, al., 2007; Sabagh et al., 2012; Rebouças and Solé, 2015; comparisons of our results with those presented by Vitt Santos-Pereira et al., 2015). For leaf litter anurans, Toft and Caldwell (1994) revealed no major differences in (1980a, 1981) described the diet pattern in three general diet composition, although the population in our study guilds according to their feeding habits: “Ant specialists inhabits a forest fragment in a human-altered habitat. (ants or mites)”, Non-ant specialists (avoiding ants and The size of A. hylaedactyla do not influenced the size of mites), and “Generalists”. The low diversity of prey prey consumed. This lack of correlation may be expected (10 prey types) and a high consumption of Formicidae for frogs as A. hylaedactyla that consume small-sized in its diet, suggests that A. hylaedactyla may be an ant and abundant prey instead of eat only few but larger specialist. items per time unit. We emphasize that future studies Our results have shown considerable similarity in are necessary to assess the availability of potential prey terms of the most important prey among A. hylaedactyla in the environment, which allow analysis of the dietary and other congeneric species for which diet are known. preference of A. hylaedactyla. However, several differences can be noted concerning the others prey categories of less importance. In general, the References prey categories occurring in the diet of A. hylaedactyla are common prey categories accounted for almost all Almeida-Gomes, M., Van-Sluys, M., Duarte Rocha, C.F. (2007): Ecological observations on the leaf-litter frog Adenomera genus Adenomera (Almeida-Gomes et al, 2007; Santos- marmorata in an Atlantic rainforest area of southeastern Pereira et al., 2015; Rebouças and Solé, 2015). In fact, Brazil. The Herpetological Journal 17: 81–85. A. hylaedactyla does not present an exclusively prey Alvares, C.A., Stape, J.L., Sentelhas, P.C., Gonçalves, J.L.M., category comparing to their congeneric species but lack Sparovek, G. (2013): Köppen’s climate classification map for many other prey categories which we found for other Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 22 (6): 711–728. Adenomera species, such as isopods and myriapods. Ayres, M., Ayres Jr., M, Ayres, D.L., Santos, A.S. (2007): BioEstat 5.0. �plicaç����������������������������������������������������� The somewhat absence of these two prey taxa in our Médicas. Belém, Brazil, Sociedade Civil de Mamirauá. study could reflect a more restricted habitat abundance Azevedo-Ramos, C., Galatti, U. (2001): Patterns of or change in the composition of the invertebrates in situ Diversity in Brazilian Amazonia: Conservation Implications. or different dietary preferences (Duellman and Trueb, Biological Conservation 103: 103–111. 1994). Becker, C.G., Loyola, R.D., Haddad, C.F.B., Zamudio, K.R. Several authors (Lima and Magnusson, 2000; (2010): Integrating species life-history traits and patterns of Rebouças and Solé, 2015) have indicated that a deforestation in amphibian conservation planning. Diversity and Distributions 16 (1): 10–19. significantly positive correlation between predator and Biavati, G.M., Wiederhecker, H.C., Colli, G.R. (2004): Diet prey size is much more common in frogs which eat only of Epipedobates flavopictus (Anura: Dendrobatidae) in a few but larger items per time unit, than those who eat Neotropical Savanna. Journal of Herpetology 38: 510–518. a larger variety of small-sized prey, which is the case Caldwell, J.P. (1996): The evolution of myrmecophagy and its Diet of Adenomera hylaedactyla from an urban area in eastern Amazon 845

correlates in poison frogs (Family Dendrobatidae). Journal of – Analysis of the ecological niche and community structure. Zoology 240: 75–101. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. De-Carvalho, C.B., Freitas, E.B., Faria, R.G., Batista, R.C., Rafael, J.A., Melo, G.A.R., Carvalho, C.J.B., Casari, S.A., Batista, C.C., Coelho, W.A., Bocchiglieri, A. (2008): Natural Constantino, R. (2012): Insetos do Brasil: Diversidade e history of Leptodactylus mystacinus and Leptodactylus fuscus Taxonomia. Ribeirão Preto, Holos Editora. (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in the Cerrado of Central Brazil. Biota Rebouças, R., Solé, M. (2015): Diet of Adenomera thomei (Almeida Neotropica 8 (3): 105–115. and Angulo, 2006) (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from a rubber tree Drummond, J.A., Dias, T.C.A.C., Brito, D.M.C. (2008): Atlas plantation in southern Bahia, Brazil. ���������������������� das Unidades de Conservação do estado do Amapá. Macapá, Fauna and Environment 50: 73–79. Ministério do Meio Ambiente/IBAMA–AP, Governo do estado Rödel, M.O., Braun, U. (1999): Associations between anurans do Amapá/Secretaria Estadual do Meio Ambiente. and ants in a West African savanna (Anura: Microhylidae, Duellman, W.E., Trueb, L. (1994): Biology of . Hyperoliidae, and Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Biotropica 31: Baltimore, USA, The John Hopkins University Press. 178–183. Ferreira R.B., Dantas R.B., Teixeira R.L. (2007): Reproduction Rodrigues, D.J., Uetanabaro, M., Prado, C.P.A. (2004): Seasonal and ontogenetic diet shift in Leptodactylus natalensis (Anura, and ontogenetic variation in diet composition of Leptodactylus Leptodactylidae) from sutheastern Brazil. �������������������� podicipinus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in the southern Pantanal, Biologia Mello Leitão 22: 45–55. Brazil. Revista Española de Herpetologia 18: 19–28. Frost, D.R. (2018): Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Sabagh, L.T., Mello, R.D.S., Rocha, C.F.D. (2012): Food niche Reference. Version 6.0. Available at http://research.amnh.org/ overlap between two sympatric leaf-litter frog species from herpetology/amphibia/index.html. New York, USA, American Central Amazonia. Zoologia (Curitiba) 29 (1): 95–98. Museum of Natural History. Accessed on 02 March 2018. Sanabria, E.A., Quiroga, L.B., Acosta, J.C. (2005): Dieta Gadsden, H.E., Palacios-Orona, L.E. (1997): Seasonal Dietary de Leptodactylus ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Anura: Patterns of the Mexican fringe-toed Lizard (Uma paraphygas). Leptodactylidae) en un humedal del oeste de . Revista Journal of Herpetology 31: 1–9. Peruana de Biología 12: 472–477. Gotelli, N.J., Entsminger, G.L. (2001): EcoSim: Null models Santos-Pereira, M., Almeida-Santos, M., Oliveira, F.B., Silva, software for ecology. Version 7.0. Available at http:// A.L., Rocha, C.F.D. (2015): Living in a same microhabitat homepages.together.net/~gentsmin/ecosim.html. Accessed on should means eating the same food? Diet and trophic niche of 28 March 2018. sympatric leaf-litter frogs Ischnocnema henselii and Adenomera Heyer, W.R., Donnelly, M.A., Mcdiarmid, R.W., Hayek, L.A.C., marmorata in a forest of Southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Foster, M.S. (1994): Measuring and Monitoring Biological Biology 75 (1): 13–18. Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Biological Solé, M., Dias, I.R., Rodrigues, E.A., Marciano-Jr. ������������ Diversity Handbook Series. Washington, USA, Smithsonian S.M., Cavalcante, K.P., Rödder, D. (2009): Diet of Leptodactylus Institution Press. ocellatus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from a cacao plantation in Kokubum, M.N.C., Sousa, M.B. (2008): Reproductive ecology of southern Bahia, Brazil. Herpetology Notes 2: 9–15. Leptodactylus aff. hylaedactylus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) from Solé, M., Rödder, D. (2010): Dietary assessments of adult an open area in northern Brazil. South American Journal of amphibians. In: Amphibian Ecology and Conservation: a Herpetology 3 (1): 15–21. handbook of techniques, p.167-184. Dodd Junior, C.K., Ed., Krebs C.J. (1999): Ecological methodology. Menlo Park, Addison Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wesley Educational Publishers. Toft, C.A. (1980a): Feeding ecology of thirteen syntopic species Lima, A.P., Magnusson, W.E. (2000): Does foraging activity of anurans in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia 45: change with the ontogeny? An assessment for six sympatric 131–141. species of postmetamorphic litter anurans in Central Amazonia. Toft, C.A. (1980b): Seasonal variation in populations of the Journal of Herpetology 34 (2): 192–200. Panamanian litter frogs and their prey: a comparison of wetter Lima, E.P.L., Rödder D., Solé, M. (2010): Diet of two sympatric and drier sites. Oecologia 47: 34–38. Phyllomedusa (Anura: Hylidae) species from a cacao plantation Toft, C.A. (1981): Feeding ecology of panamanian litter anurans: in southern Bahia, Brazil. North-West Journal of Zoology 6: patterns in diet and foraging mode. Journal of Herpetology 15: 13–24. 139–144. Magnusson, W.E., Lima, A.P., Silva, W.A., Araújo, M.C. (2003): Toledo, L.F., Silva, R.R., Haddad, C.F.B. (2007): Anurans as prey: Use of geometric forms to estimate volume of invertebrates in an exploratory analysis and size relationships between predators ecological studies of diet overlap. Copeia 2003: 13–19. and their prey. Journal of Zoology 271: 170–177. Maneyro, R., Naya, D.E., Rosa, I., Canavero, A., Camargo, A. Vitt, L.J., Caldwell, J.P. (1994): Resource utilization and guild (2004): Diet of the South American frog Leptodactylus ocellatus structure of small vertebrates in the Amazon forest leaf (Anura, Leptodactylidae) in Uruguay. Iheringia, Série Zoologia litter. Journal of Zoology 234: 463–476. 94: 57–61. Wells, K.D. (2007): The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. Oliveira, M.C.L.M., Santos, M.B., Loebmann, D., Hartman, A., Chicago, University Chicago Press. Tozetti, A.M. (2013): Diversity and associations between coastal and anurans in southernmost Brazil. Anais da Accepted by Iris Starnberger Academia Brasileira de Ciências 85: 575–584. Pianka, E.R. (1986): Ecology and natural history of desert lizards