Study
Oribatid mites as a major dietary source for alkaloids in poison frogs
Saporito, Ralph A.; Donnelly, Maureen A.; Norton, Roy A.; Garraffo, H. Martin; Spande, Thomas F.; Daly, John W.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2007
Analysed the alkaloid content of oribatid mites collected in poison frog habitat and compared the compounds found with those present in the frogs’ skin.
- Studied in
- Dendrobatidae, Oribatida
- Sample size
- mites and frogs sampled and analysed chemically
Oribatid mites contained a wide range of the alkaloids found in poison frog skin, identifying them as a major dietary source alongside ants.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Much of the chemical defence of poison frogs is traceable to a specific and previously underappreciated component of their diet.
How NatureHQ reads it
The record that makes dietary origin concrete rather than general. It matters for the site because it explains geographic variation: a frog’s toxicity depends on which alkaloid-bearing arthropods live where it does, so the same species differs between populations.
- Correlational: matching compounds between prey and predator is strong evidence of source but not a feeding experiment.
- Mites are one source among several, and the relative contribution differs by frog species and locality.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Poison frogs
Poison frogs do not make their poison. They take alkaloids from the mites and ants they eat and store them in the skin — so a frog raised on other food is not poisonous, and wild populations differ with their prey.
Poison frogs
Within the poison frog family there is a real tendency for more conspicuous species to carry more toxin. It is a tendency within one family, not a rule that transfers to animals in general.
Published by: Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesPublished in PNAS.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702851104
Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-03.