What frog science can teach us about global warming

A Frog Revival

From World Climate Report

About 15 to 20 years ago, folks began to notice problems in amphibian communities around the world. At first, physical deformities were being noticed and then large population declines were being documented.

The finger was initially pointed at the coal industry, with an idea that perhaps mercury was leading to the deformities. But this didn’t pan out. Next, farm practices came under fire, as excess fertilizer running off into farm ponds became the leading suspect. But that theory didn’t hold water either. Then, attention turned to the ozone hole, with the idea that increased ultraviolet radiation was killing the frogs. No luck there either.

Then came the Eureka moment—aha, it must be global warming!

This played to widespread audiences, received beaucoup media attention and, of course, found its way into Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

But, alas, this theory, too, wilted under the harsh glare of science, as new research has now pretty definitively linked an infection of the chytrid fungus to declines, and even local extinctions, of frog and toad species around the world.

Perhaps the biggest irony in all of this, is that while researchers fell all over themselves to link anthropogenic environmental impacts to the frog declines, turns out that as they traipsed through the woods and rainforests to study the frogs, the researchers themselves quite possibly helped spread the chytrid fungus to locations and populations where it had previously been absent.

Now a bit good—although hardly unexpected—news is coming out of the frog research studies. Some frog populations in various parts of the world are not only recovering, but also showing signs of increased resistance—gained through adaptation and/or evolution—to the chytrid fungus.

Thus opens a new chapter in the ongoing Disappearing Frog saga, and one that likely foretells of a hoppy ending.

The magazine New Scientist has an interesting article titled “Fungus out! The frog resistance is here” that ties together a growing number of research findings indicating that frog populations that once faced local extinction have been making a come back—even in the continued presence of the chytrid fungus.

New Scientist reports that Australian researchers are reporting that a variety of frog species from across the Land Down Under that were once devastated by chytrid infection are now re-establishing themselves in areas that they were wiped out and in some cases have even returned to numbers as large as they were prior to the chytrid outbreak.

Other researchers are finding, as reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Briggs et al., 2010), that frogs in the mountains of California that were once “driven virtually to extinction” are also making a recovery even though the chytrid fungus is still present. Some populations there have apparently developed the ability to survive in the presence of low-levels of the fungus.

Evidence of a developing resistance to the chytrid fungus has also been reported in a species of Australian frogs. A study published in the journal Diversity and Distributions (Woodhams et al., 2010) looked at populations of frogs which have recovered from a chytrid infection and found indications that natural selection may have led to more resistant populations and facilitated the recovery.

All this is not to say that amphibian populations across the world have made a full and complete recovery, but it is to say that there are encouraging signs that some populations are clawing their way back through adaptation and natural selection—precisely the way things are supposed to work.

And even though global warming is no longer considered to be the guilty party (of course, exonerated with much less fanfare than it was accused), the amphibian story does show the resiliency of nature—a resiliency that is grossly underplayed or even ignored in virtually all doom and gloom presentations of the impacts of environmental change.

Something that is worth keeping in mind.

References:

Briggs, C. J., et al., 2010. Enzootic and epizootic dynamics of chytrid fungal pathogen of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 9695-9700.

Woodhams, D.C., et al., 2010. Adaptations of skin peptide defenses and possible response to the amphibian chytrid fungus in populations of Australian green-eyed treefrogs, Litoria genimaculata. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 703-712.

==========================================================

Heh, guess who was pushing the alarm about AGW and frogs back then?

but wait, there’s more….

And you can find a boatload more with a Google search

Including one blog, way back then, who said “not so fast“.

  1.  

    Frog Extinctions Linked to Global Warming

     

     

    Jan 12, 2006 The die-off of harlequin frog species in Central and South America is the result of a deadly fungus spurred by global warming, a new study

    news.nationalgeographic.com/…/0112_060112_frog_climate.htmlCachedSimilar

  2.  

    Global Warming Tied To Extinction Of Frog Species – washingtonpost.com

     

     

    Jan 12, 2006 Rising temperatures are responsible for pushing dozens of frog species over the brink of extinction in the past three decades, according to

    www.washingtonpost.com › NationScienceSimilar

  3.  

    Global Warming Is Killing Frogs And Salamanders In Yellowstone

     

     

    Oct 27, 2008 Frogs and salamanders, those amphibious bellwethers of environmental danger, are being killed in Yellowstone National Park.

    www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028184830.htmCachedSimilar

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fred from Canuckistan
December 13, 2010 5:07 pm

ya but, but, but, but, but . . . chytrid fungus is caused by Global Warming so there.
Na na na na nahhhhhhh na.

William Butler
December 13, 2010 5:12 pm

I’m curious why a charlatan like you keeps spewing moronic nonsense. Really, how is it possible? Are you being paid that much?
REPLY: I don’t get paid anything from anyone, other than what I get from Google ads, so the “big oil, big whatever” sponsor theory you are probably alluding to, like so many that fail before you, fails now.
I’m curious why a person like yourself can’t see the plain science in front of your face. And, the post is mostly from World Climate Report.
Go ahead, make my day. Tell us how you “know” it’s global warming killing the frogs. – Anthony

Mooloo
December 13, 2010 5:14 pm

No-one thought it was actually global warming killing jungle frogs. Half a degree on average in 50 years wipes out tropical species? It was never really a starter.
It was a nice drum to beat, because it drove along people interested in conservation. We all know the present has barely changed in terms of the range of temperatures.
The point of AGW panic is that our future is in jeopardy.

Neil
December 13, 2010 5:16 pm

Much like this (2007) article blaming the bee decline on global warming: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1045.html.
Proper scientific investigation shows otherwise…

December 13, 2010 5:19 pm

Thus opens a new chapter in the ongoing Disappearing Frog saga, and one that likely foretells of a hoppy ending….

I see what you did there …. 😉

Adam
December 13, 2010 5:25 pm

Is “hoppy ending” a bad pun or a typo?

apachewhoknows
December 13, 2010 5:25 pm

Progs lie about frogs.
neat

Robert Wykoff
December 13, 2010 5:27 pm

I just love the cosmic irony of the very people that were clanging the alarm bells to the world, were the very source of the problem in the first place.

jorgekafkazar
December 13, 2010 5:27 pm

“…Thus opens a new chapter in the ongoing Disappearing Frog saga, and one that likely foretells of a hoppy ending.”
No chytrid?

Mark Twang
December 13, 2010 5:33 pm

As I recall, the moonbat who shot up the Discovery Channel offices outside DC had (alongside a hatred of humans) a specific concern for “the froggies” (sic).
He got turned into a newt, though, and never got better.

Pat Moffitt
December 13, 2010 5:38 pm

Any bets that a natural cause for frog decline will result in a precipitous decline in grant opportunities? Its not the problem that’s important — its the cause.

Ed MacAulay
December 13, 2010 5:41 pm

I am sure glad the frogs didn’t all croak.

Jimash
December 13, 2010 5:42 pm

I wondered where the frogs went.
An interesting side note is the implication that the scientists themselves had spread
the problem.
I wonder how many other problems are actually caused, or worsened, by the molestation of wildlife by curious grant-seekers ?

latitude
December 13, 2010 5:45 pm

“”and one that likely foretells of a hoppy ending.””
STOP IT
LOL

Jim Clarke
December 13, 2010 5:46 pm

When will environmentalists actually start to become environmentalists, instead of jack-booted thugs?

apachewhoknows
December 13, 2010 5:50 pm

Or could it be all frog croaking is a warning of the warming?

Eric Dailey
December 13, 2010 5:51 pm

Poor William Butler is so frustrated he must lash out with ad hominems. The last resort in a failed argument. He is probably real upset about all the cold and snow weather messing up the global warming. To bad.

Douglas
December 13, 2010 5:54 pm

William Butler says: December 13, 2010 at 5:12 pm
I’m curious why a charlatan like you keeps spewing moronic nonsense. Really, how is it possible? Are you being paid that much?
———————————————————————————
William Butler. Can you be for real?
Douglas

wsbriggs
December 13, 2010 5:58 pm

My favorite in the wacko’s doing in the environment is the Sudden Oak Decline (Death) Syndrom – SODS. A fungus, brought in most likely by the same folks who were treating the frogs to a new threat. The fact that Marin County, CA was heavily hit, left a certain schadenfreude.

DesertYote
December 13, 2010 6:00 pm

A major factor affecting Sierra frog population, is the introduction of centrarchid gamefish. Many reported population declines that where blamed on pesticide in the days before the frog deformity were really caused by predation.
One thing I discovered when I was still wanting to become an ichthyologist, was that amongst those studying wildlife, the people studying amphibians, were the worst enviro-nuts.

ShrNfr
December 13, 2010 6:01 pm

See there is untoad wisdom in studying frogs.

DesertYote
December 13, 2010 6:06 pm

Another point, the definition of what constitutes a species, is very loose when applied to amphibians. And the whole concept of “locally extinct” has no scientific validity.

banjo
December 13, 2010 6:06 pm

Well!….SOMEBODY was in denial:)

jack morrow
December 13, 2010 6:20 pm

Stupid scientists never learn. Even in the fifties we knew that disease was spread in chicken houses from one farm to another, so we kept out outsiders. So if they went from one frog pond to another without disinfecting themselves the they were “stupid scientists”! Case dismissed.

DD More
December 13, 2010 6:29 pm

Guess Freddy N. was right when he quoted “That which does not kill us makes us stronger. “

1 2 3 5