Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.

---

Common name: Cane Toad

Synonyms and Other Names: Bufo marinus (former scientific name), Chauna marina (former scientific name), Marine Toad, Giant Toad, Bufo Toad, Sapo Grande (Spanish), Poloka (Hawaiian).

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Rhinella marina is a large, warty, brown or dark-mottled terrestrial toad (bufonid) that can weigh up to 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs) (Powell et al. 2016). External morphology is indistinguishable from R. horribilis (Mesoamerican Cane Toad), requiring radiographical examination of skull morphology or genetic testing to differentiate them (Acevedo et al. 2016; Bessa-Silva et al. 2020). These toads have a pair of large parotoid glands that produce bufotoxins, which act as neurotoxins, each extending from just behind the eye, far down the side of the body (Powell et al. 2016; Powell et al. 1998; Lever 2001). The pupils of the eye are horizontal and the irises golden, with distinct ridges running from above their eyes down the snout (Powell et al. 2016). The tadpoles are black dorsally, with a belly that is silvery white with black spots (Ashton and Ashton 1988; Lee 1996). Adult males can be identified by their more robust forelimbs for amplexus than adult females (Lee 2001). Tadpoles of R. marina are illustrated in Lee (1996), McKeown (1996), Lever (2001), Savage (2002), and Duellman (2005).

Unlike native Southern Toads (Anaxyrus terrestris) and American Toads (A. americanus) which have relatively small, oval paratoid glands, the paratoid glands of Cane Toads are large and triangular paratoid glands. Cane Toads also have ridges or crests on top of the head between the eyes.

The call is a low-pitched, staccato trill that is slow and often likened to the sound of a distant tractor and is very similar to that of a screech owl (Powell et al. 2016; Lever 2001; Savage 2002). Recordings of the calls of R. marina are available on several CDs (Library of Natural Sounds 1996; Bogert 1998).

Size: 100-238 mm SVL (snout-vent length; measurement from snout to base of tailbone). Individuals found in the U.S. rarely exceed 178 mm SVL (Powell et al. 2016; Lever, 2001)

Native Range: Rhinella marina are indigenous to much of South America east of the Andes (Bessa-Silva et al. 2020).

Alaska	Hawaii	Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands	Guam Saipan

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Explained
Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Ecology: In the wild, these large toads are nonselective, opportunistic carnivores that consume a wide variety of invertebrates, vertebrates (including other frogs and smaller R. marina), and carrion, occasionally supplementing their diet with plant matter (Meshaka et al. 2004; Hagman and Shine 2008). In urban and suburban environments, R. marina living near human habitations will eat dog and cat food left outdoors for resident pets, along with a variety of household garbage (Savage 2002; Meshaka et al. 2004). While vision is the principle means of detecting prey, R. marina can use smell to detect immobile food items (Lever 2001, 2003; Meshaka et al. 2004).

Rhinella marina reproduces at almost any time of the year unless the temperature is too cold, laying 5,000 to 32,000 eggs (Krakauer 1968), encased in gelatinous strings, in any temporary or permanent body of water, including brackish waters (Zug and Zug 1979; Lever 2001).  In Florida, these toads will opportunistically utilize new breeding sites created by hurricanes, often in urban environments (Meshaka 1993, 2001; Meshaka et al. 2004).

Their high tolerance to saline waters (Lever 2001) may have given rise to their specific scientific name Rhinella marina and common name of marine toad (Lever 2001).

Means of Introduction: Both in the U.S. and worldwide, R. marina was introduced in an attempt to control insect agricultural pests, primarily in cane fields (hence the common name of Cane Toad; Lewis 1989; Meshaka et al. 2004). In Florida, intentional and accidental releases from animal importers have also occurred (King and Krakauer 1966). Rhinella marina collected from Bay County in the Florida Panhandle escaped from a local zoo (Himes 2007). Some nonindigenous cane toads released in Papua New Guinea and possibly elsewhere were from animals used in laboratories for human pregnancy testing (Zug et al. 1975; Lever 2001, 2003). Range expansion in Australia has been facilitated through dispersal by stowing away in shipments of landscaping material, mulch, and produce (White & Shine 2009). 

Status: Cane toads are established in Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam (including Cocos Island) and Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Republic of Palau (Lever 2001, 2003).

Most worldwide introductions have produced successfully established populations (Easteal 1981, 1986; Brown et al. 2007) with the notable exceptions of Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, Egypt, Mauritius, Cuba, Dominica, Carabita Island of Jamaica, Cook Islands, and the Marshall Islands (Schwartz and Thomas 1975; Schwartz and Henderson 1991; Lever 2003). The most successfully established populations of nonindigenous R. marina are best described as Pan-Pacific and Pan-Caribbean.

Impact of Introduction:

Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...

Ecological	Human Health	Other

Ecological—
Because there are no native Bufonid toads in Australia it is thought that many endemic species are therefore more susceptible to Cane Toad toxins (Shine 2010). Cane Toads have been implicated in severe population impacts to Australian wildlife, such as Crocodylus johnstoni (Freshwater Crocodile, Letnic et al. 2008), Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern Quoll, Woinarski et al. 2010), and numerous species of monitor (Varanus spp., Ujvari and Madsen 2009; Doody 2013) and other lizards and snakes (Jolly et al. 2015; Doody 2013). By reducing populations of these predators, other species such as some turtles have been released from predation and competition pressure and have subsequently experienced increased populations (Doody et al., 2006). Other Australian predators actively avoid consuming Cane Toads, their eggs, and tadpoles and may therefore lose out on feeding opportunities (Beckmann et al. 2011). Potential fish predators of Cane Toad eggs and tadpoles rapidly learned aversion to eating them but may suffer morality if they do eat them (Somaweera et al. 2011; Crossland 2001). Adding Cane Toad corpses to ponds proved fatal to native Australian tadpoles, fishes, and leeches (Crossland et al. 2011). Boiga irregularis (Brown Tree Snake), native to Australia but a highly invasive species in Guam, died in their native range after eating Cane Toads (Covacevich and Archer 1975), but in general avoided eating Cane Toads (Brown et al. 2011). Moreover, in Australia Cane Toads have been observed eating juvenile B. irregularis, showing intraguild predation between these two invasive species (Caudell 2000).

Despite industry concerns that domestic chickens (Gallus gallus) are susceptible to Cane Toad toxins, this species appears to be immune to Bufotoxins (Beckmann & Shine 2010). Cathartes aura (Turkey Vultures) were observed to consume a Cane Toad carcass in Louisiana with no apparent negative effects (Platt & Rainwater 2009). Didelphis marsupialis (Common Opposum) have been observed to kill and eat sympatric Cane Toads in Costa Rica and Panama; although in one case the opossum experienced negative effects (foaming at the mouth, itching) it nevertheless persisting in consuming and caching the carcass (Garnett & Boyer 1993; Laurance and Laurance, 2007). An Apalone ferox (Florida Softshell Turtle), was observed eating a Cane Toad with no ill effects (Flaherty and Friers, 2013). A juvenile C. acutus (American Crocodile) in Panama was observed eating a Cane Toad with no apparent side effects (Beaty and Beaty 2012).

Cane Toad eggs are toxic, and while Cane Toad larvae (tadpoles) can be cannibalistic (Crossland et al. 2011), tadpoles of native Australian species can die from exposure to Cane Toad eggs (Crossland et al. 2008). Paradoxically, competitive release through conspecifics eating cane Toad eggs resulted in fewer, but larger, surviving native tadpoles and metamorphs (Crossland et al. 2009). There is a high degree of dietary overlap between Cane Toads and native Southern Toads (Anaxyrus terrestris) in Florida, suggesting trophic competition between these species (Meshaka and Powell 2010) and in some areas of Florida, R. marina may displace this native Bufonid (Krakauer 1968; Wilson and Porras 1983). Cane Toad eggs can prove fatal to some North American amphibian tadpoles: Scaphiopus holbrooki (Eastern Spadefoot Toad, Lithobates sphenocephalus (Southern Leopard Frog), Hyla cinerea (Green Tree Frog), Anaxyrus terrestris (Southern Toad), and the invasive Osteopilus septentrionalis (Cuban Tree Frog) experienced 20-100% mortality (Punzo and Lindstrom 2001). Cane toad tadpoles in Florida, in combination with the presence of the nonindigenous Cuban Treefrog can negatively impact native tadpole species (Smith 2005).

The nonindigenous tick, Amblyomma rotundatum, was introduced to Florida (Oliver et al. 1993) and Hawaii (Kelehear et al. 2017) through parasitized R. marina, and the Common Dog Hookworm, Aclyostoma caninum, was found in the feces of cane toads from Tampa (Meshaka et al. 2004). Amblyomma rotundatum is a generalist tick feeds on both reptiles and amphibians and can have deleterious effects on native reptiles and amphibians; Hanson et al. (2007) identified a Southern Black Racer (Coluber contrictor priapus) that was paralyzed from the bite of A. rotundatum, though removal of the tick led to a full recovery. This tick is also associated with lesions and decreased body condition in infected Cane Toads and is a vector for Hemovilia stellate (a blood parasite) and for Rickettsia bellii (some Rickettsia species have high potential for human and wildlife illness; Kelehear 2017). Cane Toads have been implicated in the infection of endemic Australian frogs by a gallbladder parasite, Myxidium immersum (Hartigan et al. 2010). Cane toads can also spread the Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis fungus, which is devastating global amphibian populations (Lettoof et al. 2013).

Human Health--
The large paratoid glands of Cane Toads contain a milky poison (bufotoxins), and humans can become sick or even die from consuming cane toads or their eggs (Lever 2003). Cane Toad toxicity scales with body size – larger toads are consequently much more toxic than small toads. Larger predators (large lizards, snakes, crocodiles, and mammals that tear apart prey) are therefore at greater risk of poisoning (Shine 2010). The complex toxic secretion from these glands can be squirted into the eyes when toads are handled roughly, causing intense pain and a potential medical emergency (Blair 1947; Lever 2001). Domestic dogs and cats are also susceptible to the toxin expressed by Cane Toads (Lewis 1989). Consumption of Cane Toad toxin can cause symptoms including increased salivation, seizures, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmia, altered gait, and vomiting in dogs (Eubig 2001; Reeves 2004). With veterinary intervention outcomes were good, with 96% survival (Reeves 2004). Cane Toads are vectors of Salmonella, some serovars (or varieties) of which are pathogenetic to humans and wildlife (Drake et al. 2013).
 

Remarks: Several authorities have provided morphological and taxonomic reviews or summaries of R. marina (e.g., Collins and Taggart 2002; Haas 2003; Pauly et al. 2004). Frost et al. (2006) transferred all New World bufonids out of the genus Bufo, consequently placing “Bufo” marinus into the genus Chaunus. Systematic research by Pramuk (2006) suggested an additional split within this South American group. More recently, Chaparro et al. (2007) transferred this and some other South American bufonid species into the genus Rhinella (Frost et al. 2008). Cane toads have long been considered to be one species throughout their range. However, studies have now differentiated these Cane Toads into two species: R. marina found in South America east of the Andes, and R. horribilis from South America west of the Andes through Central America to Texas (Acevedo et al. 2016; Bessa-Silva et al. 2020); native Cane Toads in southern Texas should now be considered R. horribilis (Mesoamerican Cane Toad). Using x-ray radiography three cane toads in Polk County, Florida were confirmed to be R. horribilis while no cane toads in Florida have been confirmed as R. marina (Abercrombie et al. 2022). Further research will be necessary to further elucidate the relative non-native distributions of R. marina and R. horribilis.

Various studies and summaries of the natural history of R. marina have been published (e.g., Schwartz and Henderson 1991; Lever 2001; Laurance and Laurance 2007). Summaries of the complex history of introductions of cane toads worldwide are provided by Easteal (1981) and Lever (2001, 2003).

The clearing of forests for agriculture and roadways in Amazonian South America creates new habit that is quickly invaded by R. marina (Duellman 1999). In Australia, cane toads can disperse rapidly by using sparsely vegetated roadside clearings as corridors (Brown et al. 2006). In arid regions of Hawaii, cane toads are mostly found around golf courses, residential areas, resorts, and other irrigated habitats (Ward-Fear et al. 2016). Sensitivity to cold weather and their restriction to disturbed anthropogenic habitats may eventually halt the slow, northward spread of R. marina in Florida (Krakauer 1968).

References: (click for full references)

Abercrombie, H.E., M. Ferrera, P. Schultz, S. Watkins, E. Eversole, D.B. Estabrooks, and N.Ferrera. 2022. Geographic Distribution: Rhinella Horribilis. Herpetological Review 53(1):74.

Acevedo, A.A., M. Lampo, and R. Cipriani. 2016. The cane or marine toad, Rhinella marina (Anura, Bufonidae): two genetically and morphologically distinct species. Zootaxa 4103(6):574-586.

AmphibiaWeb. 2019. Rhinella marina: South American Cane Toad <https://amphibiaweb.org/species/229> University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Accessed Sep 30, 2021.

Ashton, R.E., and P.S. Ashton. 1988. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida. Part Three: The Amphibians. Volume 3. Windward Publishing, Inc Miami, FL.

Beckmann, C., M.R. Crossland, and R. Shine. 2011. Responses of Australian wading birds to a novel toxic prey type, the invasive cane toad Rhinella marina. Biological Invasions 13:2925-2934. 

Beckmann, C., and R. Shine. 2010. The power of myth: the (non) impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) on domestic chickens (Gallus gallus). Animal Production Science 50:847-851. 

Beaty L., and S. Beaty. 2012. Rhinella marina (Cane Toad). Crocodile predation. Herpetological Review 43(3):471. 

Bessa-Silva, A., M. Vallinoto, I. Sampaio, O. Flores-Villela, E. N. Smith, and F. Sequeira. 2020. The roles of vicariance and dispersal in the differentiation of two species of the Rhinella marina species complex. Molecular p 145(106723):1-12.

Blair, A.P. 1947. Defensive use of parotoid secretion by Bufo marinus. Copeia 1947(2):137.

Bogert, C. M. 1998. Sounds of North American Frogs. The Biological Significance of Voice in Frogs. Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, Washington, D.C. Audio CD Recording.

Brown, G.P., B.L. Phillips, and R. Shine. 2011. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads on tropical snakes: Field data do not support laboratory-based predictions. Ecology 92(2):422-431. 

Brown, G.P., B.L. Phillips, J.K. Webb, and R. Shine. 2006. Toads on the Road: Use of Roads as Dispersal Corridors by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus) at an Invasion Front in Tropical Australia. Biological Conservation 133(2006):88-94.

Brown, G. P., C. Shilton, B. L. Phillips, and R. Shine. 2007. Invasion, stress, and spinal arthritis in Cane Toads. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 104(45):17698-17700.

Caudell, J.N., B. James, and P. Lawie. 2000. Boiga irregularis (brown tree snake): predation. Herpetological Review 31(4):245.

Chaparro, J.C., J.B. Pramuk, and A.G. Gluesenkamp. 2007. A New Species of Arboreal Rhinella (Anura: Bufonidae) from Cloud Forest of Southeastern Peru. Herpetologica 63(2):203-212.

Covacevich, J. and M. Archer. 1975. The distribution of the Cane Toad, Bufo marinus, in Australia and its effects on indigenous vertebrates. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 17(2):305-310.

Crossland, M.R. 2001. Ability of predatory native Australian fishes to learn to avoid toxic larvae of the introduced toad Bufo marinus. Journal of Fish Biology 59:319-329. 

Crossland, M.R., G.P. Brown, M. Anstis, C.M. Shilton, and R. Shine. 2008. Mass mortality of native anuran tadpoles in tropical Australia due to the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus). Biological Conservation 141(9):2387-2394. 

Crossland, M., G. Brown, and R. Shine. 2011. The enduring toxicity of road-killed cane toads (Rhinella marina). Biological Invasions 13(9):2135-2145. 

Crossland, M.R., M.N. Hearnden, L. Pizzatto, R.A. Alford, and R. Shine. 2011. Why be a cannibal? The benefits to cane toad, Rhinella marina (=Bufo marinus), tadpoles of consuming conspecific eggs. Animal Behaviour 82(4):775-782. 

Doody, J.S., C.M. Castellano, D. Rhind, B. Green. 2013. Indirect facilitation of a native mesopredator by an invasive species: are cane toads re-shaping tropical riparian communities? Biological Invasions 15(3):559-568. 

Doody, J.S., B. Green, R. Sims, D. Rhind, P. West, and D. Steer. 2006. Indirect impacts of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) on nest predation in pig-nosed turtles (Carettochelys insculpta). Wildlife Research 33(5):349-354. 

Drake, M., V. Amadi, U. Zieger, R. Johnson, H. Hariharan. 2013. Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Cane Toads (Bufo marinus) from Grenada, West Indies, and their Antimicrobial Susceptibility. Zoonoses and Public Health 60:437-441. 

Duellman, W. E. 1999. Global distribution of amphibians: Patterns, conservation, and future changes. Pp. 1-30. In: W. E. Duellman (editor). Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians. A Global Perspective. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 633 pp.

Duellman, W. E. 2005. Cusco Amazónico. The Lives of Amphibians and Reptiles in an Amazonian Rainforest. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press.

Easteal, S. 1981. The history of introductions of Bufo marinus (Amphibia: Anura); a natural experiment in evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 16(2):93-113.

Eubig, P.A. 2001. Bufo species toxicosis: Big toad, big problem. Veterinary Medicine August:594-599. 

Flaherty, J.P., and J. Friers. 2013. Apalone ferox (Florida Softshell). Diet. Herpetological Review 44(3):500. 

Frost, D. R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R. H. Bain, A. Haas, C. F. B. Haddad, R. O. De Sá, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, S. C. Donnellan, C. J. Raxworthy, J. A. Campbell, B. L. Blotto, P. Moler, R. C. Drewes, R. A. Nussbaum, J. D. Lynch, D. M. Green, and W. C. Wheeler. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297:1-370 + Fig. 50 foldout.

Frost, D. R., R. W. McDiarmid, and J. R. Mendelson III. 2008. Anura—frogs. Pp. 2-12. In: B. I. Crother (chair), and Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names (editors). Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular (37):1-84.

Garrett, C.M., and D.M. Boyer. 1993. Bufo marinus (Cane Toad) Predation. Herpetological Review 24(4):148.

Haas, A. 2003. Phylogeny of frogs as inferred from primarily larval characters (Amphibia:Anura). Cladistics 19:23-89. 

Hagman, M., and R. Shine. 2008. Deceptive Digits: The Functional Significance of Toe Waving by Cannibalistic Cane Toads, Chaunus marinus. Animal Behaviour 75(1):123-131.

Hanson, B.A., P.A. Frank, J.W. Mertins, and J.L. Corn. 2007. Tick Paralysis of a Snake Caused by Amblyomma rotundatum (Acari: Ixodidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 44(1):155-157. 

Hartigan, A., D.N. Phelan, and J. Slapeta. 2010. Museum material reveals a frog parasite emergence after the invasion of the cane toad in Australia. Parasites and Vectors 3:50. 

Himes, J. G. 2007. Geographic distribution. Bufo marinus (Marine Toad). USA: Florida: Bay Co. Herpetological Review 38(4):473.

Holbrook, A.L. 2015. Rhinella marina (Cane Toad). Incidental translocation. Herpetological Review 46(2):237. 

Kelehear, C., C.M. Hudson, J.W. Mertins, and R. Shine. 2017. First report of exotic ticks (Amblyomma rotundatum) parasitizing invasive cane toads (Rhinella marina) on the Island of Hawai‘i. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases 8(2):330-333. 

King, [F.] W., and T. Krakauer. 1966. The exotic herpetofauna of southeast Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 29(2):144-154.

Krakauer, T. 1968. The Ecology of the Neotropical Toad, Bufo marinus, in South Florida. Herpetologica 24(3):214-221.

Laurance, S. G., and W. F. Laurance. 2007. Chaunus marinus (Cane Toad). Predation. Herpetological Review 38(3):320-321.

Lee, J.C. 1996. The Amphibians and Reptiles of the Yucatan Peninsula. Cornell University Press.

Lee, J. C. 2001. Evolution of a secondary sexual dimorphism in the toad, Bufo marinus. Copeia 2001(4):928-935.

Letnic, M., J.K. Webb, and R. Shine. 2008. Invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) cause mass mortality of freshwater crocodiles (Crocodylus johnstoni) in tropical Australia. Biological Conservation 141(7):1773-1782. 

Lettoof, D.C., M.J. Greenlees, M. Stockwell, and R. Shine. 2013. Do invasive cane toads affect the parasite burdens of native Australian frogs? International Journal of Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 2:155-164. 

Lever, C. 2001. The Cane Toad. The History and Ecology of a Successful Colonist. Westbury Academic and Scientific Publishing, Otley, West Yorkshire, England.

Lever, C. 2003. Naturalized Reptiles and Amphibians of the World. Oxford University Press.

Lewis, S. 1989. Cane Toads. An unnatural history. Dolphin/Doubleday, New York, NY.

Library of Natural Sounds. 1996. Voices of the Night. The Calls of the Frogs and Toads of Eastern North America. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Audio CD Recording.

Lobdell, R. N. 1936. Field and laboratory studies upon insect pests of South Florida with particular reference to methods of control. State Project 87. University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Annual Report 1936:123-124.

Lobdell, R. N. 1937. Insect pests and their control. State Project 87. University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Annual Report 1937:141-142.

McKeown, S. 1996. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians in the Hawaiian Islands. Diamond Head Publishing, Inc., Los Osos, California.

Meshaka, W. E., Jr. 1993. Hurricane Andrew and the colonization of five invading species in South Florida. Florida Scientist 56(4):193-201.

Meshaka, W. E., Jr. 2001. The Cuban Tree Frog in Florida. Life History of a Successful Colonizing Species. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Meshaka, W. E., Jr., B. P. Butterfield, and J. B. Hauge. 2004. The Exotic Amphibians and Reptiles of Florida. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.

Meshaka, W.E., Jr., and R. Powell. 2010. Diets of the native southern toad (Anaxyrus terrestris) and the exotic cane toad (Rhinella marina) from a single site in South-Central Florida. Florida Scientist 73(2):175-179.

Oliver, J.H., Jr., M.P. Hayes, J.E. Keirans, and D.R. Lavender. 1993. Establishement of the Foreign Parthenogenitic Tick Amblyomma rotundatum (Acari: Ixodidae) in Florida. Journal of Parasitology 79(5):786-790.

Pauly, G.B., D.M. Hillis, and D.C. Cannatella. 2004. The history of a Nearctic colonization: molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the nearctic toads (Bufo). Evolution 58(11):2517-2535. 

Platt, S.G., and T.R. Rainwater. 2009. Noteworthy Observations of Foraging Turkey Vultures. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(4):839-841. 

Powell, R.J.T. Collins, and E.D. Hooper, Jr. 1998. A Key to Amphibians & Reptiles of the Continental United States and Canada. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

Powell, R., R. Conant, and J.T. Collins. 2016. Peterson field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, NY.

Pramuk, J.B. 2006. Phylogeny of South American Bufo (Anura: Bufonidae) inferred from combined evidence. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 146(3):407-452.

Punzo, F., and L. Lindstrom. 2001. The Toxicity of Eggs of the Giant Toad, Bufo marinus to Aquatic Predators in a Florida Retention Pond. Journal of Herpetology 35(4):693-697.

Reeves, M.P. 2004. A retrospective report of 90 dogs with suspected cane toad (Bufo marinus) toxicity. Australian Veterinary Journal 82(10):608-611.

Savage, J.M. 2002. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica. A Herpetofauna between Two Continents, between Two Seas. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Schwartz, A., and R. Thomas. 1975. A Check-list of West Indian Amphibians and Reptiles. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication(1):1-216.

Schwartz, A., and R. W. Henderson. 1991. Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions, and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Shine, R. 2010. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. The Quarterly Review of Biology 85(3):253-291.

Smith, K.G. 2005. Effects of Nonindigenous Tadpoles on Native Tadpoles in Florida: Evidence of Competition. Biological Conservation 123:433-441.

Somaweera, R., M.R. Crossland, and R. Shine. 2011. Assessing the potential impact of invasive cane toads on a commercial freshwater fishery in tropical Australia. Wildlife Research 38(5):380-385. 

Ujvari, B., and T. Madsen. 2009. Increased mortality of naive varanid lizards after the invasion of non-native cane toads (Bufo marinus). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4(2):248-251. 

Ujvari, B., R. Shine, and T. Madsen. 2011. Detecting the impact of invasive species on native fauna: Cane toads (Bufo marinus), frillneck lizards (Chlamydosaurus kingii) and the importance of spatial replication. Austral Ecology 36:126-130. 

Ward-Fear, G., M.J. Greenlees, R. Shine. 2016. Toads on Lava: Spatial Ecology and Habitat Use of Invasive Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) in Hawai’i. PLoS ONE 11(3):1-16. 

White, A.W., and R. Shine. 2009. The extra-limital spread of an invasive species via ‘stowaway’ dispersal: toad to nowhere? Animal Conservation 12:38-45. 

Wilson, L.D., and L. Porras. 1983. The Ecological Impact of Man on the South Florida Herpetofauna. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Woinarski, J.C.Z., M. Armstrong, K. Brennan, A. Fisher, A.D. Griffiths, B. Hill, D.J. Milne, C. Palmer, S. Ward, M. Watson, S. Winderlich, and S. Young. 2010. Monitoring indicates rapid and severe decline of native small mammals in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Wildlife Research 37(2):116-126. 

Zug, G.R., E. Lindgren, and J.R. Pippet. 1975. Distribution and ecology of the marine toad, Bufo marinus, in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Science 29(1):31-50.

Zug, G. R., and P. B. Zug. 1979. The Marine Toad, Bufo marinus: A natural history resumé of native populations. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology (284):i-iv, 1-58.

Other Resources:
Nonindigenous Species Website Links

Frogs and Toads of Florida

Bufo marinus (Marine Toad) (Gulf of Mexico Program)

Bufo marinus (Global Invasive Species Database)

Marine toads (Bufo marinus) (University of Florida, IFAS)

Author: Freedman, J.A. and Somma, L.A.

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.