One of the many ways that invasive species can affect native ecosystems is by modifying the behavioural and ecological interactions among native species. For example, the arrival of the highly toxic cane toad (Bufo marinus) in tropical Australia has induced toad-aversion in some native predators. Has that shift also affected the predators' responses to native prey-for example, by reducing vulnerability of native tadpoles via a mimicry effect, or increasing vulnerability of other prey types (such as insects) via a shift in predator feeding tactics? We exposed a native predator (northern trout gudgeon, Mogurnda mogurnda) to toad tadpoles in the laboratory, and measured effects of that exposure on the fish's subsequent intake of native tadpoles and crickets. As predicted, toad-exposed fishes reduced their rate of predation on (palatable) tadpoles of native frogs (Litoria caerulea and L. nasuta). If alternative prey (crickets) were available also, the toad-exposed fishes shifted even more strongly away from predation on native tadpoles. Thus, invasion of a toxic species can provide a mimicry benefit to native taxa that resemble the invader, and can shift predation pressure onto other taxa.

Learning to avoid toxic prey items may aid native predators to survive the invasion of highly toxic species, such as cane toads Bufo marinus in tropical Australia. If the predators’ initial aversion is generalized, native prey that resemble the toxic invader may receive a benefit through accidental mimicry. What ecological factors influence the acquisition of learned avoidance (and hence, the impact of invasion on both predators and native prey)? We conducted laboratory experiments to evaluate how the relative abundance of toad tadpoles compared to palatable native tadpoles (Litoria caerulea and L. rubella) affected the ability of native aquatic predators to discriminate between these two prey types. Both fish (northern trout gudgeon, Mogurnda mogurnda) and frogs (Dahl's aquatic frog, Litoria dahlii) learned to discriminate between toads and frogs within an eight‐day period. Higher abundance of toad tadpoles relative to frog tadpoles enhanced rates of predator learning, and thus reduced predation on toads and increased predation on native tadpoles. In the field, spatial and temporal variation in the relative abundance of cane toads compared to native frogs may influence the rates at which these novel toxic items are deleted from predator diets, and the duration of predator protection afforded to natives that resemble the invader.

One important impact of invasive species may be to modify the behaviour of native taxa. For example, the invasion of highly toxic cane toads (Bufo marinus) kills many anurophagous native predators, but other predators learn to recognize and avoid the toxic invader. We exposed native fish (northern trout gudgeons, Mogurnda mogurnda) and Dahl's aquatic frogs (Litoria dahlii) to cane toad tadpoles, then monitored the predator's responses during subsequent trials. Both the frogs and fish initially attacked toad tadpoles, but rapidly learned not to do so. Fish and adult frogs retained their aversion for at least a week, whereas recently metamorphosed frogs did not. Clearly, the spread of cane toads through tropical Australia can modify feeding responses of native aquatic predators. For predators capable of rapid avoidance learning, the primary impact of cane toads may be on foraging behaviour rather than mortality.

In 2005, news media widely reported the discovery that a native Australian frog species, Litoria dahlii, could consume the normally toxic tadpoles of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) without ill effects, and might therefore be helpful in controlling these troublesome pests. Our experimental studies show that, contrary to the story, L dahlii is just as vulnerable to toad toxins as are other native frog species. So, why did the story spread so widely, and what does this tell us about the power of myth in public debates about conservation issues?