Poison dart frog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidae)
Dendrobates tinctorius "azureus" (top) and Dendrobates leucomelas
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Order: Anura
Suborder: Neobatrachia
Superfamily: Dendrobatoidea
Family: Dendrobatidae
Cope, 1865
Subfamilies and genera
Distribution of Dendrobatidae (in black)

Poison dart frog (also dart-poison frog, poison frog or formerly poison arrow frog) is the common name of a group of frogs in the family Dendrobatidae which are native to Central and South America. These species are diurnal and often have brightly colored bodies. Although all wild dendrobatids are at least somewhat toxic, levels of toxicity vary considerably from one species to the next and from one population to another. Many species are threatened. These amphibians are often called "dart frogs" due to the Amerindians' indigenous use of their toxic secretions to poison the tips of blowdarts. However, of over 175 species, only four have been documented as being used for this purpose (curare plants are more commonly used), all of which come from the Phyllobates genus, which is characterized by the relatively large size and high levels of toxicity of its members.[2][3]


Dyeing dart frog (Dendrobates tinctorius).

Most species of poison dart frogs are small, sometimes less than 1.5 cm (0.59 in) in adult length, although a few grow up to 6 cm (2.4 in) in length. Most poison dart frogs are brightly colored, displaying aposematic patterns to warn potential predators. Their bright coloration is associated with their toxicity and levels of alkaloids. Frogs such as the Dendrobates genus have high levels of alkaloids, whereas the Colostethus species are cryptically colored and are not toxic.[4]




Poison dart frogs are endemic to humid, tropical environments of Central and South America.[2] These frogs are generally found in tropical rainforests, including in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Suriname, French Guiana, Peru, Panama, Guyana, Nicaragua, and Hawaii (introduced).[2][8]



Captive female D. auratus.





Genus name and authority Common name Species
Adelphobates (Grant, et al., 2006)
Ameerega (Bauer, 1986)
Colostethus (Cope, 1866) Rocket frogs
Dendrobates (Wagler, 1830) Poison dart frogs
Epipedobates (Myers, 1987) Phantasmal poison frogs
Excidobates (Twomey and Brown, 2008)
Hyloxalus (Jiménez de la Espada, 1870)
Minyobates (Myers, 1987)
Oophaga (Bauer, 1994)
Phyllobates (Duméril and Bibron, 1841) Golden poison frogs
Ranitomeya (Bauer, 1986) Thumbnail dart frogs
Silverstoneia (Grant, et al., 2006)

Color morphs[edit]

Some poison dart frogs species include a number of conspecific color morphs that emerged as recently as 6,000 years ago.[14] Therefore, species such as Dendrobates tinctorius, Oophaga pumilio, and O. granulifera can include color pattern morphs that can be interbred (colors are under polygenic control, while the actual patterns are probably controlled by a single locus).[15] Differing coloration has historically misidentified single species as separate, and there is still controversy among taxonomists over classification.[16]

Variation in predation regimens may have influenced the evolution of polymorphism in O. granulifera,[17] while sexual selection appears to have contributed to differentiation among the Bocas del Toro populations of Oophaga pumilio.[18][19][20]

Toxicity and medicine[edit]

The skin of the phantasmal poison frog contains epibatidine

Many poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their skin. Alkaloids in the skin glands of poison frogs serve as a chemical defense against predation, and they are therefore able to be active alongside potential predators during the day. About 28 structural classes of alkaloids are known in poison frogs.[2][21] The most toxic of poison dart frog species is Phyllobates terribilis. It is argued that dart frogs do not synthesize their poisons, but sequester the chemicals from arthropod prey items, such as ants, centipedes and mites – the diet-toxicity hypothesis.[22][23] Because of this, captive-bred animals do not possess significant levels of toxins as they are reared on diets that do not contain the alkaloids sequestered by wild populations. Nonetheless, the captive-bred frogs retain the ability to accumulate alkaloids when they are once again provided an alkaloid-containing diet.[24] Despite the toxins used by some poison dart frogs, some predators have developed the ability to withstand them. One is the snake Leimadophis epinephelus, which has developed immunity to the poison.[25]

Chemicals extracted from the skin of Epipedobates tricolor may be shown to have medicinal value. Scientists use this poison to make a painkiller. [26] One such chemical is a painkiller 200 times as potent as morphine, called epibatidine; however, the therapeutic dose is very close to the fatal dose.[27] A derivative ABT-594 developed by Abbott Laboratories, called Tebanicline got as far as Phase II trials in humans,[28] but was dropped from further development due to unacceptable incidence of gastrointestinal side effects.[29] Secretions from dendrobatids are also showing promise as muscle relaxants, heart stimulants and appetite suppressants.[30] The most poisonous of these frogs, the golden poison frog (Phyllobates terribilis), has enough toxin on average to kill ten to twenty men or about ten thousand mice.[31] Most other dendrobatids, while colorful and toxic enough to discourage predation, pose far less risk to humans or other large animals.

Evolution of skin coloration and toxicity[edit]

An early study by Summers and Clough (2000) on the evolution of skin coloration and toxicity in the Dendrobatidae family indicated that evolution of skin toxicity correlated significantly with the evolution of bright coloration.[32] Adding to this research, a study by Santos and Cannatella (2011) went on to explain that conspicuous coloration correlated with diet specialization, body mass, aerobic capacity, and chemical defense in poison frogs.[6] Santos and Cannatella (2011) offer two evolutionary scenarios that explain these correlations. One possibility is that aposematism and aerobic capacity preceded greater resource gathering, making it easier for frogs to go out and gather the ants and mites required for diet specialization. This is counter to classical aposematic theory, which assumes toxicity from diet arises before signaling. Their second hypothesis suggests that diet specialization preceded higher aerobic capacity and that aposematism evolved in order to allow Dendrobatidae to gather resources without predation.

Other evidence suggests conspicuousness and toxicity may be inversely related. A recently published study by Wang and Shaffer (2011) supports this idea. This study found that polymorphic poison dart frogs that are less conspicuous are more toxic in comparison to the brightest and most conspicuous species.[33] Energetic costs of producing toxins and bright color pigments lead to potential trade-offs between toxicity and bright coloration.[34] Prey with strong secondary defenses (like the toxic frogs in the Wang and Shaffer 2011 study) have less to gain from costly signaling. Therefore, prey populations that are more toxic are predicted to manifest less bright signals.[35] This theory challenges the tenet that increased conspicuousness always evolves with increased toxicity.

Prey mobility could also explain the initial development of aposematic signaling. If prey have characteristics that make them more exposed to predators, such as size or habitat, then they have ample reason to develop aposematism. An example of this is the shift from nocturnal behavior to diurnal behavior in some dendrobatids.[36] After the switch to diurnal behavior, the frogs had greater ecological opportunities and as a result dietary specialization arose. [37] Thus, aposematism is not merely a signaling system, but a way for organisms to gain greater access to resources and increase their reproductive success.

Marples et al., however, showed that dietary conservationism (long-term neophobia) in predators could facilitate the evolution of warning coloration if predators avoid novel morphs for a long enough period of time.[38] Another rarely acknowledged avenue of the evolution of aposematism is the gradual-change hypothesis. Lindström et al. found that the gradual-change hypothesis did not provide an easy solution to the beginnings of aposematism, but that “cost-free stepwise mutations over the range of weak signals could accumulate under neutral selection to produce effective strong signals”.[39]

Many studies have suggested that sexual selection plays a role in the diversification of skin color and pattern in poison frogs.[40][41] [42] [43] With female preferences in play, the coloration of males would change more rapidly. Sexual selection is influenced by many things. The parental investment may shed some light on the evolution of coloration in relation to female choice. In the species O. pumilio (a member of the dendrobate genus) parental investment is not equal. The female makes the eggs and provides care for the offspring for several weeks whereas the males makes the sperm (less energy) and only provides care for a few days. This differential in parental investment indicates that there will be a strong female preference. Sexual selection makes the phenotypic variation in a species increase drastically. Tazzyman and Iwasa (2010) found that there were populations of O. pumilio that participated in sexual selection and populations that did not. In the populations that did use sexual selection, the phenotypic polymorphism was evident.[44]

The lack of sexual dimorphism in some dendrobatid populations suggests that sexual selection is not a valid hypothesis of the changing coloration.[45] This could be because the main protective measure in aposematic frog populations is their ability to warn predators of their toxicity. Rudh et al. (2011) predicted that female preference for brighter males would increase the coloration in both sexes and thus increase the fitness of both of the sexes. If there were a sexual dimorphism between males and females within an aposematic population there would be a difference in the predation of males and females that would cause an imbalance in the number of males and females, which would affect mating strategies and ultimately change the mating behavior of the species.

Captive care[edit]


Conservation status[edit]

Many species of poison dart frogs have recently experienced habitat loss (due to logging and farming), as well as chytrid diseases. Some are listed as threatened or endangered as a result.[48] Zoos have tried to counteract this disease by treating captive frogs with an antifungal agent that is used to kill athlete's foot in humans.[49]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b Grant, T., Frost, D. R., Caldwell, J. P., Gagliardo, R., Haddad, C. F. B., Kok, P. J. R., Means, D. B., Noonan, B. P., Schargel, W. E., and Wheeler, W. C. (2006). "Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Amphibia: Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae)". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (American Museum of Natural History) 299 (299): 1–262. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2006)299[1:PSODFA]2.0.CO;2. 
  4. ^ Caldwell, J.P. (1996). "The evolution of myrmecophagy and its correlates in poison frogs (Family Dendrobatidae).". Journal of Zoology 240 (1): 75–101. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05487.x. 
  5. ^ Santos, JC; Coloma, Cannatella (2003). "Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs". PNAS 100 (22): 12792–12797. doi:10.1073/pnas.2133521100. PMC 240697. PMID 14555763. 
  6. ^ a b Santos, J. C.; D. C. Cannatella (2011). "Phenotypic integration emerges from aposematism and scale in poison frogs". Prodeedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (15): 6175–6180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010952108. PMC 3076872. PMID 21444790. 
  9. ^ Hurme, Kristiina; Gonzalez, Kittzie; Halvorsen, Mark; Foster, Bruce and Moore, Don (2003). "Environmental Enrichment for Dendrobatid Frogs". Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.) 6 (4): 285–299. doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0604_3. PMID 14965783. 
  11. ^ Summers, Kyle; Symula, Clough, Croni (1999). "Visual mate choice in poison frogs". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 266 (1434): 1–5. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0900. PMC 1690338. PMID 10649631. 
  13. ^ Pough, F. H.; Andrews, Robin M.; Cadle, John E. and Crump, Martha L. (2004). Herpetology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 92. ISBN 0-13-100849-8. 
  14. ^ Summers, K; Symula, R; Clough, M; Cronin, T (Nov 1999). "Visual mate choice in poison frogs". Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266 (1434): 2141–5. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0900. PMC 1690338. PMID 10649631. 
  15. ^ Summers K., Cronin T. W., Kennedy T. (2004). "Cross-breeding of distinct color morphs of the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio) from the Bocas del Toro Archipelago, Panama". Journal of Herpetology 38 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1670/51-03A. 
  17. ^ Wang, I. J. (2011). "Inversely related aposematic traits: reduced conspicuousness evolves with increased toxicity in a polymorphic poison-dart frog". Evolution 65 (6): 1637–1649. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01257.x. PMID 21644954. 
  18. ^ Maan, M. E.; M. E. Cummings (2008). "female preferences for aposematic signal components in a polymorphic poison frog". Evolution 62 (9): 2234–2345. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00454.x. PMID 18616568. 
  19. ^ Reynolds, R. G.; B. M. Fitzpatrick (2007). "Assortative mating in poison-dart frogs based on an ecologically important trait". Evolution 61 (9): 2253–2259. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00174.x. PMID 17767594. 
  20. ^ Tazzyman, I. J.; Y. Iwassa (2010). "Sexual selection can increase the effect of random genetic drift – a quantitative genetic model of polymorphism in Oophaga pumilio, the strawberry poison-dart frog". Evolution 64 (6): 1719–1728. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00923.x. PMID 20015236. 
  22. ^ Darst, C., Menendez-Guerreor, P., Coloma, L. and Cannatella, D. (2005). "Evolution of Dietary Specialization and Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidate): A Comparative Analysis". The American Natural 165 (1): 56–69. doi:10.1086/426599. PMID 15729640. 
  23. ^ Daly, J.W., Gusovsky, F., Myers, C.W., Yotsuyamashita, M., and Yasumoto, T. (1994). "1st Occurrence of Tetrodotoxin in a Dendrobatid Frog (Colostethus-Inguinalis), with Further Reports for the Bufonid Genus Atelopus". Toxicon 32 (3): 279–285. doi:10.1016/0041-0101(94)90081-7. PMID 8016850. 
  24. ^ Saporito, R.; Donnelly, M.; Norton, R.; Garraffo, H.; Spande, T.; Daly, J. (2007). "Oribatid mites as a major dietary source for alkaloids in poison frogs". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (21): 8885–8890. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702851104. PMC 1885597. PMID 17502597. 
  25. ^ Myers, C.W.; Daly, J.W. and Malkin, B. (1978). "A dangerously toxic new frog (Phyllobates) used by the Emberá Indians of western Colombia, with discussion of blowgun fabrication and dart poisoning". Bulletin of the American Museum of natural history 161 (2): pp. 307–365 + color pls. 1–2. hdl:2246/1286. 
  27. ^ Prince, R. J. and Sine, S. M. (2008). "Epibatidine activates muscle acetylcholine receptors with unique site selectivity". Biophysical Journal (Biophysical Journal) 75 (4): 1817–27. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77623-4. PMC 1299853. PMID 9746523. 
  28. ^ Decker, M.; Meyer, M.; Sullivan, J. (2001). "The therapeutic potential of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists for pain control". Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 10 (10): 1819–1830. doi:10.1517/13543784.10.10.1819. PMID 11772288.  edit
  29. ^ Meyer MD. Neuronal Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors as a Target for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain. Drug Development Research. 2006; 67: 355-359.
  31. ^ "Most poisonous creature on earth could be a mystery insect". Wonderquest.com. Retrieved 2013-07-26. 
  32. ^ Summers, K.; Clough, M. (2000). "The evolution of coloration and toxicity in the poison frog family (Dendrobatidae)". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (11): 6227–6232. doi:10.1073/pnas.101134898. PMC 33450. PMID 11353830. 
  33. ^ Wang, I.; H. B. Shaffer (2008). "Rapid Color Evolution in an Aposematic Species: A Phylogenetic Analysis of Color Variation in the Strikingly Polymorphic Strawberry Poison-Dart Frog". Evolution 62 (11): 2742–2759. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00507.x. PMID 18764916. 
  34. ^ Speed, I; M. A. Brockhurst and G. D. Ruxton (2010). "The dual benefits of aposematism: Predator avoidance and enhanced resource collection". Evolution 64 (6): 1622–1633. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00931.x. PMID 20050915. 
  35. ^ Speed, I.; G. D. Ruxton, J. D. Blount, and P. A. Stephens (2010). "Diversification of honest signals in a predator-prey system". Ecology Letters 13 (6): 744–753. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01257.x. PMID 21644954. 
  36. ^ Santos, J. C.; L. A. Coloma and D. C. Cannatella (2003). "Multiple, recurring origins of aposematism and diet specialization in poison frogs". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (22): 12792–12797. doi:10.1073/pnas.2133521100. PMC 240697. PMID 14555763. 
  37. ^ Summers, K. (2003). "Convergent evolution of bright coloration and toxicity in frogs". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Uniteds States of America 100 (22): 12533–12534. doi:10.1073/pnas.2335928100. PMC 240648. PMID 14569014. 
  38. ^ Marples, N.M.; Kelly, DJ; Thomas, RJ (2005). "Perspective: The evolution of warning coloration is not paradoxical". Evolution 59 (5): 933–940. PMID 16136793. 
  39. ^ Lindström, L.; Alatalo, Rauno V.; Mappes, Johanna; Riipi, Marianna; Vertainen, Laura (1999). "Can aposematic signals evolve by gradual change?". Nature 397 (6716): 249–251. doi:10.1038/16692. 
  40. ^ Mann, M.E.; Cummings, M.E. (2009). "Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (106): 19072–19077. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903327106. 
  41. ^ Summers, K; L. Bermingham, S. Weigt, S. McCafferty, and L. Dahlstrom (1997). "Phenotypic and genetic divergence in three species of dart-poison frogs with contrasting parental behavior". The Journal of Heredity 88 (1): 8–13. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a023065. PMID 9048443. 
  42. ^ Rudh, A.; B. Rogell and J. Hoglund (2007). "Non-gradual variation in color morphs of the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio: genetic and geographical isolation suggest a role for selection in maintaining polymorphism". Molecular Ecology 16 (20): 4282–4294. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03479.x. PMID 17868297. 
  43. ^ Maan, M. E.; M. E. Cummings (2009). "Sexual dimorphism and directional selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (45): 19072–19077. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903327106. PMC 2776464. PMID 19858491. 
  45. ^ Rudhl, Andreas; B. Rogell, O. Hastad, and A. Qvarnstrom (2011). "Rapid population divergence linked with co-variation between coloration and sexual display in strawberry poison frogs". Evolution 65 (65): 1271–1282. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01210.x. 
  46. ^ Stefan, Lötters; Jungfer, Henkel, Schmidt (2007). Poison Frogs: Biology, Species, & Captive Husbandry. Serpent's Tale. pp. 110–136. ISBN 3-930612-62-3. 
  47. ^ Gray, HM; Nepveu, G; Mahé, F; Valentin, G (2002). "Traumatic Injuries in Two Neotropical Frogs Dendrobates auratus and Physalaemus pustulosus". Journal of Herpetology 36 (1): 117–121. doi:10.1051/forest:19940309. 
  48. ^ Daszak P, Berger L, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD, Green DE, Speare R. (1999). "Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines". Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5 (5): 735–48. doi:10.3201/eid0506.990601. 

External links[edit]