Page 43 -

โครงการรวบรวมและจัดทําเอกสารวารสารอิเล็กทรอนิกส์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์

32

Note: SP=Subphylum, SC=Subclass, mel=Duttaphrynus melanostictus, lim=Fejervarya limnocharis, car=Megophrys carinense,
smi=Leptobrachium smithi, lax=Leptolalax sp., meg= Megophrys sp., mol=Glyphoglossus molossus, pul=Kaloula pulchra,
ber=Microhyla berdmorei, but=Microhyla butleri, hey=Microhyla heymonsi, ino=Micryletta inornata, pen=Clinotarsus
penelope, ery=Hylarana erythraea, nig=Sylvirana nigrovittata, leu=Polypedates leucomystax, jar=Rhacophorus jarujini,
rho=Rhacophorus rhodopus.

DISCUSSION

The results from examining the stomach contents of some tadpoles showed that the tadpoles
were herbivorous and omnivorous. In fact, microalgae was the most abundant item in all of the
tadpoles’ stomachs, followed by diatoms and fungi like-organisms, respectively. These findings were
similar to the food items mentioned in a study by Heyer (1973), who found that the food items of
eight anuran tadpoles (Glyphoglossus molossus, Microhyla fissipes, Microhyla butleri, Microhyla
heymonsi, Kaloula pulchra, Duttaphrynus melanostictus, Fejervarya limnocharis and Sylvirana

nigrovittata) at the Sakaerat Environmental Research Station in Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand, which
was filled with algae and diatoms. In addition, Singh et al. (2014) reported that the food items of
Leptobrachium smithi tadpole (from Rosekandy Tea Estate, Cachar, Assam) consisted of diatoms,
algae, and protozoa.
Regarding our results, the tadpoles were separated into two groups: 1) a keratinized group and
2) a non-keratinized group. Firstly, the keratinized group included ten species (Fejevarya limnocharis,
Sylvirana nigrovittata, Hylarana erythraea, Duttaphrynus melanostictus, Leptobrachium smithi,
Polypedates leucomystax, Clinotarsus penelope, Leptolalax sp., Rhacophorus rhodopus and

Rhacophorus jarujini) which fed on algae, protozoa, fungi like-organisms, rotifers, diatoms, copepods,
nematodes, arthropods (butterfly wing scales, insect fragments Collembora fragments, Chironomidae
larvae, and the claws and bodies of arthropods), and plant parts. In this work, it was found that
Polypedates leucomystax had fed on algae. This finding is in agreement with Inthara (2000), who
suggested that Polypedates leucomystax present as keratinized and has a beak which causes their
feeding behaviors to be predator-like, allowing them to feed on algae growing on substrates.
Conversely, the non-keratinized tadpoles consisted of eight species (Kaloula pulchra, Microhyla
butleri, Microhyla berdmorei, Microhyla heymonsi, Glyphoglossus molossus, Micryletta inornata,
Megophrys carinense and Megophrys sp.), which had fed on algae, protozoa, fungi-like organisms,

rotifers, diatoms, copepods, arthropods (butterfly wing scales, arachnid fragments, and wing
fragments of Odonata), nematodes, and on plant parts.
In addition, the habitat itself is a factor that contributes to differences in food items. Khan
(1999) suggested that tadpoles usually feed on the food that is in their habitat and that ecological
factors can also influence the food selection of tadpoles in their natural habitats (Duellman & Trueb,
1994). In case of insufficient food in particular habitat, a cannibalism could be occurred (Alford, 1999).
At Yoddom Wildlife Sanctuary (Ubon Ratchathani Province), the Rhacophorus jarujini were observed

to eat other dead Rhacophorus jarujini tadpoles (Y. Chuaynkern: personal observation).
As our knowledge about food items in anuran tadpoles are little known, this paper provides
the preliminary investigation on anuran diets. However, further study in various amphibian tadpoles
is essential to full-fill our gap of knowledge about dietary of this vertebrate group.

วารสารสัตว์ป่าเมืองไทย ปีที่ 25 พ.ศ. 2561 Journal of Wildlife in Thailand Vol. 25, 2018