Share this Page


Two Frogs, Two Pesticides and their Toxicity

Two pesticides used in highly populated agricultural areas of California appear to be killing frogs that live and breed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, according to results from a study published in the August 2009 issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The study examined how chlorpyrifos and endosulfan used in the Central Valley of California affect amphibians that breed in the mountains to the east. Toxicity was measured to larval Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) and foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii), which are among the amphibians with declining populations that often live and breed in meadows surrounding the Sierra Nevada. Winds blow insecticide residues into the mountains, and they fall as rain or snow. In these regions, insecticides have longer half-lives because of cooler temperatures and can be spread by melting snow to areas where amphibians live and breed.

As outlined in the article, "Toxicity of Two Insecticides to California, USA, Anurans and Its Relevance to Declining Amphibian Populations" by Donald W. Sparling and Gary M. Fellers, the study used laboratory testing to examine how the insecticides affected the two frogs at environmentally realistic concentrations. During testing, tadpoles were observed at various stages of development to see how the insecticides affected their growth and health.


Sparling performed the study at the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. Fellers worked through the U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecology Research Center, at Point Reyes, Calif.

Endosulfan was more toxic than chlorpyrifos to both species, according to the research, and tadpoles of both species developed abnormalities when exposed to high endosulfan concentrations. Endosulfan also affected the growth and development rates in both species. The researchers say this affects the amphibians' behavior and increases their vulnerability to predators and hydrological events such as floods and droughts. The study also shows that chlorpyrifos and endosulfan are highly toxic to both amphibians, with the yellow-legged frogs more sensitive than the Pacific treefrogs to these insecticides.

"The difference in sensitivity is important, because P. regilla populations are still comparatively stable in California, even in montane areas, whereas R. boylii is one of the species that has declined in recent years," according to Sparling and Fellers.

The yellow-legged frogs, which rely more on standing water during reproduction, have seen higher population declines compared with other species.

"Concentrations of insecticides in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California may have the ability to inflict serious damage on native amphibians," Sparling and Fellers write. "The present study adds to the increasing evidence that pesticides are very harmful to amphibians living in areas that are miles from sources of pesticide application."

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry is a publication of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.


Comments

Tue, Jul 28, 2009 Satyabroto Banerji India

The study to which this report refers used Endosulfan and Chloropyriphos as technical grade materials in solvents other than the ones used in regulated formulations. The pesticides were artificially added to a laboratory environment in a manner that does not represent drift in real life. I dispute the conclusions of this study, and call the Ethics Committee which approved of this needless slaughter of tadpoles to account.

Tue, Jul 28, 2009 Ron Perkins Lexington, VA

Frog Plague Explained
Posted 2009-07-09

Thought ever occcur to you to do your homework before writing kneejerk ECO-HYSTERIA articles!

Science Defeats Hysteria





Stunned scientists everywhere wondered what caused the tadpoles to grow into frogs with missing or extra legs? Pesticides were the default answer, but a decade later, we know the pesticide alarmists were flat wrong.

While some scientists attributed the deformities to parasites, Sierra magazine reported at the time, one researcher examined 30,000 frogs and found the obvious answer.

“In ponds exposed to pesticides through spraying drift, runoff, or careless disposal of pesticide containers, 15 to 20 percent of the frogs were deformed. In unexposed control ponds, misshapen frogs amounted to 2 percent or less. …
Not so much, it turns out. Stanley Sessions, a biologist at Hartwick College in Oneonta, N.Y., has discovered the real reason frogs are often missing limbs. Dragonfly nymphs, he reports in the “Journal of Expermental Zoology, Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution,” are chowing down on tadpoles.

In a press release from Hartwick, Mr. Sessions explained that “these predators grab tadpoles and almost surgically remove their tender hind limbs with their mandibles.” The phenomenon is called “selective predation” because “the predators consume only selected parts of the prey. It seems pretty obvious in hind sight, but this solves the whole rest of the problem.”

And the cause of extra limbs? Mr. Sessions solved that problem in 1999. Parasitic flatworms burrow into the creature’s limb buds, disturbing the normal growth of the legs.

The point here isn’t to say that pollution is not a problem. It is, and it needs to be addressed.
Rather, the point is that scientists and public officals were convinced that chemical pollution caused the amphibian deformities until Mr. Sessions studied the dragonfly nymphs. Mr. Sessions, by the way, doesn’t say pesticides can’t cause some deformities. Rather, he says, selective predators and parasites sufficiently explain the phenomenon.

But don’t expect the professional ecohysterics to relent. Ten years ago, when Mr. Sessions discovered that parasites, not chemicals, caused extra limbs, one EPA bureaucrat said “[i]t would be premature to say that we’ve solved the problem.” Said another flat-earther, “for us, chemicals are the leading hypothesis.”

The lesson here is this: Those who swear global warming will destroy the planet if we don’t “do something” and “get control of the climate,” which humans cannot control, should back off and let the skeptics have their say. They should follow the real science where it leads.

Serious scientists are unafraid to hear contrary theories. The instinct to question the received wisdom is how Mr. Sessions proved what was maiming the froglets. Global warming also has its skeptics. The question is when they will be heard.







Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above