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“.
The frogs evolved – what a surprise (bears…. woods anyone).
In a similar way, human society will evolve (probably not our genetics) to adapt to whatever climate change occurs. And we will adapt a whole lot better and faster if we don’t put stupid constraints on our economic development (such as energy taxes).
/rant mode = off/
Now time to go and play in the snow!
Robert Wykoff says: “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.”
Ironic, yes, but a sad sort of irony.
There is an example of something very similar, but showing the response of REAL environmentalists. Recently here in the US, a fungal infection has wiped out huge numbers of bats. Initially, the cause of the die-offs was something of a mystery. As soon as the deaths were traced to fungal infections, the word went out among the caver community (potholer for you Brits.) Knowing that they might be spreading the spores, cavers began limiting or halting access to endangered caves, and starting a policy of cleaning and washing equipment to prevent cross contamination. No hysteria, no end-of-the-world; instead, “identify the problem, find the cause, work toward a solution.”
Just an example of sincere, rational environmentalists in action in contrast to the environmental wackos.
The “Inconvenient Truth” from the beginning of our earth’s existence is that “everything changes”, as the running waters in a river:
Δεν γίνεται να μπει κανείς στο ίδιο νερό του ποταμού που κυλάει δύο φορές.
You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.
Heraclitus.
And…thankfully. Could you imagine a world where all “endangered species” would have been saved from extinction by Al Gore’s great great grand father. Surely we could have become extinct, instead.
[Lets put an end to this now shall we. Spit-ball contests are for those who study sand-boxes…. bl57~mod]
Fair nuff bl57! It’s just some mornings I can’t stomach the arrogant trash these people deal in.
So the eons old evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest thing whatever the challenge to the species.
So would the same apply to us all even if the climate change monster does its worst – or is that too much to hope for?
Usual bashing against AGW, but did some research and found the reality. In fact, if someone said it was AGW – he was wrong. But some could not resist to associate both of them (on both sides).
Still, i don’t remember Gore putting frog’s illness on GW. He used frogs to demonstrate something else. But you like to use Gore for whatever reason instead of staying focus on the subject.
In the scientific community, they search if the propagation was caused by GW – it was not (that was known as early as 2004). It turned out it was the infested frogs being move (exported) from one area to another in the world that was propagating the fungus . Same kind of infestation as the zebra shell in the great lakes – it came by transportation (transatlantic boat).
If you want some demagogy, human is again the source of that problem – AGFI, for Anthropogenic Global Frog Ilness ;-). Still it is quite normal that frogs that have never been exposed to such fungus will get hill. Some people in the world have a high level of arsenic in there food – and they don’t get sick for that. Bring a good US citizen at that place to eat the same food and he’ll get sick overnight.
Ever heard about ”da tourista” when you go south, Mexico, Dominican Republic and all those nice vacation places. Same thing.. Locals are not sick drinking the water. Bring a good US citizen on the island and have him drink half a glass of the same water, he’ll get sick all week (some died).
Back to the subject.. The following text from the Amphibian Ark. Note on that site about the Chytrid Fungus, not a single word about GW, AGW, or climate. And it’s all about science. BD is the C.Fungus variant at the source of the frog’s illness.
So if Bd has only recently been introduced to new locations, where did it come from? There is genetic and historical evidence that Bd has been present for a long time in Africa (Soto-Azat et al., 2010; Weldon et al., 2004); Japan (Goka et al., 2009) and eastern North America (Garner et al., 2006) and all have been proposed as the possible site of origin. Although the exact origin of Bd has not yet been determined, it has become clear that global trade in amphibians for food, for use as laboratory animals, or for use as pets or display animals is responsible for movement of Bd to locations where it was not previously present (Weldon et al., 2004; Schloegel et al., 2009). This has led to international regulations under the World Organization for Animal Health to require that amphibians be free of Bd infection before international shipment (Schloegel et al, 2010).
To the people commenting @William Howard Butler, he’s a troll and should be ignored, if you wish to understand them more try :-
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
E.M. Smith says: “Species” It’s not a law, just some ‘ol prudish dingbat trying to limit your love… ”
Yes. 🙂
Some years back I posted some comments on a board discussing evolution when the subject of chimpanzee-human hybrids came up. The concensus of people in the discussion was “Humans cannot create a crossbreed with chimps because we are different species.” I pointed out that horse-donkey, and lion-tiger crosses exist, both examples being of species with a higher genetic difference than that between humans and chimps. I pointed out that “species” is a rough rule of thumb with no clear definition. No change in opinions…concensus remained “We are different species, end of discussion!”
Note that I am not proposing or endorsing (or volunteering for!) the experiment, only saying that we do not know.
Regg_upnorth,
Why let a heart-string’s scare tactic go unabated on a vector destined for a dead end when you can stop them from wasting all those resources and reducing their own stressing over naught by merely “heading them off at the pass”? I would however say not a single climate realist wishes Gore anything but continued health and the freedom to keep burying himself in both his words and his garish display of that Big Climate fortune.
Environmentalism is a religion; it doesn’t need facts. Facts just get in the way of the faithful’s ultimate goal of eliminating the parasitic disease known as humanity.
The thing i see being the problem is warmist keep saying the climate change is happening to fast for adaption, And yet they keep proving them selves wrong as seen with the frogs and if you look back at WUWT history this year on ocean acidifacation and the fish around coral reefs. They keep saying the changes are happening to fast for adaption but NATURE proves them WRONG every time.
I read this in a German tabloid during the time it was going on, so my apologies in advance for the lack of citations: Six years ago there was an alert for exploding frogs in northern Germany. Yes, exploding frogs. The usual culprits were blamed (AGW, fertilizer run off from house yards, illegal dumping of who-knew-what) until it turned out that the local ravens were selectively eating bits of live frogs. The dying frogs apparently could no longer control their respiration and gas exchange and were hyper inflating and then “pop” went the amphibians. No, I didn’t follow up to see if the ravens were being affected by AGW, pollution, a bad horoscope, et cetera.
The hubris of these scientists knows no bounds, and over the years they have persuaded politicians that the rest of humanity should be proscribed by law from touching many of the creatures with which we share this world.
Here on the Solway we have the most northerly colony of natterjack toads and some years ago I took my grandson to a local nature reserve for the afternoon for a wardened walk.
Part way round the warden lifted a tin sheet and emerged with a toad. To my amazement he then solemnly admonished the crowd not to try this for themselves, as he was licenced to touch the animals and that it was a criminal offence to interfere with them in any way without that authority.
There were then, as there are now, tens of thousands of natterjacks widespread throughout the area, and their courtship song continues to fill the twilight air of a late May evening; for most people the only indication of the existence of this secretive nocturnal amphibian.
All hale his noodleyness~
E.M.Smith says:
December 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm
DesertYote says:
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.
It’s properly called “extirpation” but so many folks don’t know that word that it’s just a lot easier to say “locally extinct” as that is descriptively correct of the meaning. I wouldn’t stress over it.
###
I stress over it because the greenies deliberately replaced the term “extirpation” with “local extinction” for propaganda purposes. 20 years ago, everyone interested in conservation knew what extirpated meant. I get very tired of the loony left defining our language. It is not an accident, it is not done out of convenience, or to make things easier to understand, it is done to lie.
Do you remember those beautifully filmed, but insidiously deceitful piece of Marxist propaganda dressed up as science called “Blue Planet” and “Planet Earth”? In one of them they showed some footage of a troglodytic fish that they kept calling a “Cave Angelfish”. I damn near blew a gasket!
The fish was a member of a species in the genus Homaloptera (don’t ask me which one, there are a lot and only about a half of them have been given names [because ichthyologists, at least try to make sure that their taxonomy matches reality, unlike some herpetologists]). Homaloptera are called “Lizard Fish” or “Gecko Fish”. They also intimated that this was a very rare and unique organism. BS! The family, Balitoridae is littered with troglodytes. Some species even have normal and troglodytic phenotypes.
The other thing that really bothered me was that the film crew was molesting the fish severely ( though they did not show that, of course) in order to get it to swim the way they wanted it to. Homaloptera almost never swim that way. Everything about the scene was a lie.
And let us not forget the recent failed attempt by the wacko greenies to get everyone to start calling “Polar Bears”, “Ice Bears”. And speaking of Ursus maritimus, we have a perfect example of the problem with trying to define a species. By our common sense understanding of species, U. maritimus and U. arctos, are seperate species, but according to a more technical, cladistic definition, either U. maritimus is really U. arctos maritimus, or U. arctos is more then one species. This is because U. maritimus is more closely related to U.a.middendorffy, then either is to U.a.arctos.
When I was talking about the definition of what constitutes a species is very loose when applied to amphibians, I am talking way above and beyond the normal understood problems with definitions. There are a lot of herpetologist that what to call every regional variation a unique species. “100s of species of tree frog discovered in a 1000 sq. kM of jungle!” Yeah, right, give me a break.
@jim Steele
Your two contributions are most appreciated. I feel better informed now than with the lead post alone.
The alleged frog extinction-AGW link particularly resonated with the mainstream media and the public. It was one of the main pieces of evidence that proved the AGW.
So it turns out the so-called ‘canary in the mine’ died of disease, not ‘methane’. And I get to learn about this only today. Not in the supposedly objective and factual mainstream media but thanks to the skeptic blogosphere.
It’s a familiar story to anyone who understands evolution. A pathogen evolves into a new strain, the host has no resistance – except for a few individuals. Nature then selects these individuals to out-live and out-breed those without the resistant gene. The population bounces back with the new genotype, and resistant gene pool extant.
I would wager the same eventual outcome for the recent bee colony disorder. Indeed, I think that already pathogens are suspected. The solution is to do precisely nothing. Let natural selection solve the problem as it always does. The bees will eventually bounce back, resistant and invigorated.
“Thus opens a new chapter in the ongoing Disappearing Frog saga, and one that likely foretells of a hoppy ending.”
Punny man!
Nice find, Scott; the authors were getting off on the right leg until they fell back onto the usual but-
“Both Sessions and Johnson believe that the parasites take advantage of the frog’s deformities to further their own reproductive success throughout their life cycle. Initially, immature trematodes infect aquatic snails and reproduce asexually, often reaching numbers that kill the snail. Once the larvae are in the water again, they attack tadpoles, with an eye to their third host, birds, where they reproduce sexually. The fact is that the birds find it easier to dine on the deformed frogs. And via the birds’ feces, the parasites travel to the next pond.
That said, the involvement of natural parasites in producing misshapen or fewer frogs doesn’t necessarily absolve human activities.”
Crispin, really, this is just a bit too hopless even for a deaf frog.
“The problem with warmistas, like amphibians, is that deprived of their marketing appendage, they will just grow a new tale. Pinoccio’s image come to mind…”
Annei;
try this site on your cane toads
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1265310.htm
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/efnlogo.jpg
Jason;
I worked with a guy who swore he saw human/chimp crosses loading a ship in Guyana (circa 1945), who’s to say?
@Desert Yote:
OK, I see your point… I rail about the ‘redefinition’ game in other contexts, so I guess it’s only fair that I accept it’s being played here, too…
Frog science is very similar to Flea science:
If you pull all the legs of a trained jumping flea it becomes deaf and will no longer obey the commands of the observing “soft scientists” to jump.