1/3 of Amphibians Dying Out

Death Metal sends in a Scientific American article reporting that 2,000 of 6,000 amphibian species are endangered worldwide. A combination of environmental assaults, including global warming, seems to be responsible. "... national parks and other areas protected from pollution and development are providing no refuge. The frogs and salamanders of Yellowstone National Park have been declining since the 1980s, according to a Stanford University study, as global warming dries out seasonal ponds, leaving dried salamander corpses in their wake. Since the 1970s, nearly 75 percent of the frogs and other amphibians of La Selva Biological Station in Braulio Carrillo National Park in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica have died, perhaps due to global warming. But the really bad news is that amphibians may be just the first sign of other species in trouble. Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water. What goes for amphibians may soon be true of other classes of animal, including mammals."

Correlation does not imply causation...

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown that amphibians are the first to respond to environmental changes, thanks to their sensitivity to both air and water.

So maybe we're seeing why the dinosaurs died out. They were too sensitive to environment change. They couldn't adapt to the changes in climate and died.

The article starts out blaming man and herbicides, but then has to conclude that even areas free from herbicides, such as national parks "provide no refuge." So that is blamed on global warming (no doubt man-made), causing the ponds to dry out. Neither of these are supplemented with facts, but is all speculative. Frogs and salamanders are dying, so we must be causing it.

Even though we may want to, there is no way we can save every species from extinction. We talk time and again about survival of the fittest in science class, yet we can't seem to acknowledge that species must adapt or die. Animal species that are hardy will thrive. Those who are not will not. We could have the perfect ecosystem for frogs and salamanders, and that would threaten some other species that found the weather too damp or warm to thrive. We blame ourselves for everything, when in fact there's no evidence that, if we all vanished tomorrow, animals wouldn't continue to die out as they always have.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation...

If we cause the climate and environment to change too quickly, no species gets a chance to adapt. It takes at least thousands, probably millions of years for species to actually adapt.

So, it's more likely we will kill off almost all species leaving just the small number that by sheer luck can cope with widely diverse conditions... like cockroaches.

I don't see what there is to argue about. Clearly, species are going extinct in great numbers, it's largely due to us, and most species are not adapting.

Indeed

Let's say you had a group of tool wielding apes who had advanced to such a high level of technology that their activities changed the environment, and upset millions of years of evolution and balance. Despite detecting this early on, they failed to adapt the way the transport themselves, the amount of natural resources they needlessly consume, and did nothing to change course.

Let's say those apes did not survive the correction that the environment made to re-establish equilibrium. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.

You can make all the excuses you want for yourself, but your children don't exist on rhetoric, they exist on planet earth. If you're even willing to take a chance on continuing the path that has led to the decline of every single system of life on earth since the industrial revolution, you're mad, or a fool, or both.

The epidemic of cancer is certainly proof that something that we are doing to the planet it making it and us very ill, let alone the undeniable evidence, built up over the last fifty years, that wherever industrial developments are, vibrant ecosystems are not.

Cancer 'epidemic'

The epidemic of cancer is certainly proof that something that we are doing to the planet it making it and us very ill, let alone the undeniable evidence, built up over the last fifty years, that wherever industrial developments are, vibrant ecosystems are not.

I don't think the basis of your argument deserves the kind of consideration that your point itself does.

The industrial junk we've been pumping out can't be good; I don't think you'll find many people that are pro-pollution... The problem with your argument is studies show cancer has been decreasing for decades -- not just mortality, but also the diagnosis and development of. Considering detection has certainly improved and pollution has certainly NOT improved, it should be on the rise in a big way. Why the discrepancy? It did increase during the 70s and 80s, but was that because of better detection rates? It is easy to write it off as such, but who knows... I don't -- and neither do you.

Unfortunately, that's the problem. We don't have much reliable data to follow because the data itself has been a work in progress for decades. For example, whether or not you believe they have an agenda, the National Cancer Institute [cancer.gov] shows this downward trend, and it continues. I'm sure if you went back to 1930 or something, cancer rates per capita were far, far lower though; however, you cannot get accurate numbers because many people would have not been treated or improperly diagnosed. It's pretty easy to fudge the numbers and statistics to indeed lie.

As I'm sure you know though, the problem with 'the evidence' is it is difficult to concretely prove... either way. There are just too many variables to take in account with living organisms to do meaningful, empirical tests that prove something without a shadow of a doubt. Sadly, not many people will listen until such links can be made unequivocally.

In short, I wouldn't use cancer as your 'undeniable evidence', but your point/intentions are good and I personally agree with you, although probably to a lesser degree.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation...

We blame ourselves for everything, when in fact there's no evidence that, if we all vanished tomorrow, animals wouldn't continue to die out as they always have..

No, but there is evidence that since humans came to the scene, and especially since the industrial age, the species are going extinct at a rate from 100s to 1000s of times greater than before.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation...

We talk time and again about survival of the fittest in science class, yet we can't seem to acknowledge that species must adapt or die. Animal species that are hardy will thrive.

Also, you know what the problem with this is? The ones that are going to survive aren't going to be cute cuddly little puppy dogs. They're going to be cockroaches that can see heat and that shoot molecular acid on you while you're sleeping. They're going to be bird-eating spiders. Octopi that walk on land and reshape/recolor themselves to look like a tree or boulder... until they pounce and eat you.

You know, basically we'll all be living in Australia.

The fundamental problem with this

Even though we may want to, there is no way we can save every species from extinction. We talk time and again about survival of the fittest in science class, yet we can't seem to acknowledge that species must adapt or die. Animal species that are hardy will thrive. Those who are not will not.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that we have evolved to a stage where we can "beat" any other species. Human-level intelligence has transformed evolutionary competition into a straight out massacre. We also have the ability to change the environment in ways which are effectively catacylsmic from the point of view of evolution - if you radically alter the environment over the course of a few decades or even centuries, then there is nowhere near enough time for a typical vertebrate to adapt via natural selection to a hostile environment.

If we are indeed affecting the climate, as seems likely, then I find it plausible to think that we could quite easily end up wiping out most species on earth, save for a few super-hardy ones. Unfortunately we will probably survive ourselves, which hardly seems fair. If you want to compete until the end, I hope you like the sound of a future filled with cockroaches, feral cats, rabbits, rats and flies because those are the types of animals which will thrive in a man made environmental apocalypse.

I would like to think that if we are intelligent enough to realise that we have the power to exterminate the other varieties of life on earth, then we are also intelligent enough to realise why we shouldn't (including both cold rational reasons and aesthetic/moral reasons).

Do you really believe that it is ok on any level if, say, every last tiger dies as a result of human impact on the environment? What if we go out and shoot them all? Because we could, and it sounds like you're saying that would be good and proper, or at least 'evolutionarily correct' in some way.

Re:Correlation does not imply causation...

For the life of me, I don't see what the controversy is all about... you can listen to FOX News or the scientific leaders of the planet who almost to a person (that means for the most part any scientist not working a for a major fossil fuel producer), that the world is in the throws of monumental change. In fact, the question is no longer if, but how much, and by when will it be something capable of dirrupting human existence.

The changes map almost precisely to the amount of greenhouse gas there is in the atmosphere. The system is complex, and once you pass the tipping point change will amplify. Global albido has changed. The chemistry of the oceans has changed. The chemistry of the atmosphere has changed. There are more cloud, more water vapor (itself a greenhouse gas), and less ice on the planet. There are more floods, stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, more droughts, and the weather is becoming more irratic. All of these changes are hostile to higher life forms. Ultimately these changes will prove most hostile to a sustainable humanity.

We have not yet transcended our biological base. When we loose the ability to irrigate fields, feed livestock, then feed ourselves, billions of us will go away. We are at the top of the food pyramid, we are an apex species, and it is always the apex species which go away first in a mass die-off. Of course our big brains may help us cope with the change, it might even save us from extinction, but I can tell you now, it won't be a world as nice, or as benevolent as the one we have today. That and all the species that we rely on for everything from pollination, to pleasing our eyes and ears are going to be gone. It would be as easier to live on mars than to live on the planet we are in the process of making, and we won't have the means to live on mars any time soon.

This isn't about loosing one species. We are already now disappearing thousands of species a year. Most of these are invertebrates. But once we get to higher life forms we need to be concerned about where homo sapien falls on that list of threatened species. There are maybe 1,500 cheetahs in the wild left on the planet. A few hundred tigers. Several dozen snow leopards. Once you turn 10,000 acres of rainforest into dessert sand, everything that lived there from the microbes in the soil up are gone forever. We are biotic. We cannot escape the destiny of life disappearing if we allow virtually all higher life to disapper from the planet, we will amost certainly be one of the species to vanish.

Being we are an engineering race, we may still have time to fix our mess. However the time is slipping fast and we haven't shown much proclivity for wisdom or awareness on a global scale. We need to address the issues that face us now. In very much the same way America has turned itself into a financial vaccum, we are on the verge of turning the world into a vacuum for life. Leaders asleep at the wheel, a populace so intranced by the day to day process of making a living, and fulfilling ever growing wants, that one hardly notices that we are using up the world, and are on the verge of making the world unfit for consumption by humans or any other higher life form.

The information is freely available. The science at this point in the game is virtually incontrovertible. The politicians and the pundits can debate all they want. The conservative and liberal can fight. The religious can pray endlessly. None of that will alter a single leaf falling. We have now a vanishingly small window of opportunity. The wise man would act now.

Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming!

Been reading too many oil company lackeys' "studies", eh? Guess everyone in the field is a gullible fool compared to you, random anonymous Internet poster.

Sun Not a Global Warming Culprit, Study Says [nationalgeographic.com]
Solar Variability Unlikely To Have Caused Recent Warming [cc.oulu.fi]
Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says [nationalgeographic.com]
Solar Activity Not Causing Warming [agu.org]

Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming!

"Good thing you didn't quote the same source twice to pad your results." I'm assuming that was sarcasm, because of the two National Geographic articles. The two articles refer to two different studies and were published almost a year apart. If you want to argue editor bias or something like that, that's one thing. However the grandparent was making a legitimate attempt to back up his claim with multiple sources. Just because that's a rarity around here is no cause to try to spin his/her motives. And again, if you weren't being sarcastic, I apologize, but then that line was kind of random.

Re:Pollution/Habitat loss, not global warming!

We have serious problems with pollution and habitat loss, none with "Global Warming" which is nothing but a scam to take advantage of Gaia-worship and gullible fools.

It's incredible what kind of nonsense gets modded insightful. A scam by whom? By the national academies of science of all developed countries: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 [royalsociety.org] Why would they take part in a scam? What would just about all major scientific organizations and a vast majority of individual scientists involved in climate research have to gain by putting their reputations on the line in order to "take advantage of Gaia-worship and gullible fools"? What would they have to gain from it?

Re:*squish* Just like grape.

While it may seem fine and dandy to say that - if enough of the ecosystem is wiped out then it will make life much more difficult for us. Remember that when one species dies out its not just it that is effected, other species in the ecosystem that rely on it for their niches are also destroyed, and when enough go it creates a chain reaction that takes out quite a lot. If we are not careful we can make life very bad for us, and could even render earth uninhabitable.

Re:*squish* Just like grape.

The rule for species survival is simple: adapt or die.

Yep - simple rule, and it applies to us as well. And compared to other species, our adaptation is simple and very easy. Yet we don't seem to be able to accept the necessity, let alone commence the process. Does our own apparent inability to adapt mean that our extinction should be treated with the aplomb with which you dismiss the amphibians, the coral reefs, the oceanic plankton?

There are historical events of much greater scale and effect than this global climate change will be.

Probably not. This extinction event is shaping up to be unprecedented. I'm wondering actually how you arguments will fit with the conversations we will have with our kids about all those animals in kids books that we killed off. I suppose we could burn all our copies of Finding Nemo.

A species that can't adapt to a minor change in environment was probably doomed to extinction anyways regardless of Man's contribution to global climate change.

I guess in the same way, it doesn't matter if I run over an old man in the street, because I couldn't be bothered steering. He would have died anyway, right?

Re:*squish* Just like grape.

This isn't about feeling sorry for the animals. Every field of science, from biochemistry to aerodynamics has benefited and can continue to benefit from studying animal and plant life. Amphibians are a particularly interesting family that has contributed a lot to science.

Re:*squish* Just like grape.

Since there are already many comments already posted I doubt this will get read and I suspect the OP is a troll, but this is really an unpalatable level of ignorance.

Amphibians aren't a "species," they're an entire class of interesting, ecologically important animals. Their continued existence is in our best interest for a number of reasons;

First, amphibians tend to be important bell weather species in their habitats. Since they take in water in the first part of their life cycles, they are important barometers of the amount of pollution in an environment.

Second they are ecologically important. As predators we depend on them to keep the number of insects down. In a world without amphibians I suspect insect borne human disease will become more rampant. They also are important food sources for larger animals.

Third, it is not a issue of "adaptation." Most scientists seem to agree the biggest threat facing amphibians is pollution (again because part of their life cycle is spent completely in water and even after that their skin is porous). While factors like global warming, UV radiation, etc. are no doubt important, the trend seems to be pollution being a major factor.

A note to my third point - you are almost as bad as Creationist "scientists." You say amphibians should "evolve," but you fundamentally don't understand how evolution works. It takes time for a species to do so and moreover, it has to respond to environmental conditions (changes in the environment, in predators or prey), not to pollution.

Fourth, amphibians are hugely important in human science. The chemicals they produce, the aspects of embryonic life they can teach us, and the clues they might give us to the move that fish made onto land is of large scientific importance. Not to mention the fact that a number of problems now affecting amphibians is sure to (if it hasn't already - it would seem harder to gauge with completely aquatic life than it would with amphibians) be a problem for fish and other scientifically and commercially important wildlife.

Re:Pffft...

Expansion is what is causing the contraction of numbers in Yellowstone. Yellowstone itself is a super volcano and its magma has been pushing the surface up for a very long time, heating the ground, air and water around it. They have literally found fish cooked in the water around the park in recent years and not geyser water. Trees have died after having their roots cooked. The heat from the rising magma there far exceeds anything global warming could do in that vicinity. If it ever erupts again there will likely be widespread destruction from the eruption followed by some global cooling.

Yellowstone would not be a good example to use when blaming global warming for dried up pools there, though perhaps not totally unrelated. TFA used it for an example of a location with dead salamanders etc in dried out pools without mentioning the more likely cause being the super volcano heating everything above it, very poor form indeed.

Re:That doesn't make any sense

What's the point of evolving amphibious capability if not for greater environmental tolerance?

Who said evolution has to make sense?

Re:Bullshit on Bullshit!

Personally, I wouldn't take advice on the law or public policy from two jokers who make a living from misdirection and yelling profanity at reasoned arguments.

Furthermore, I wouldn't cite as evidence of how horrible the ESA is a video that builds part of its argument around the notion that there is no mass extinction event going on right now in an article about a mass extinction event going on right now.

Good Lord, give me back the past 30 minutes of my life. What an irritating mishmash of profanity, name-calling, and irrational conservative talking points. Lindy's story was kind of sad, but the impact of the story was blunted severely by all the smug, sneering, venomous, and immature posturing that overlay it.

Re:Bullshit!

Although I greatly enjoy Penn and Teller's views on a variety of subjects, particularly civil liberties, many of their more science-centered episodes rely on rampant misinformation. As a paleontology graduate student trained in both mass extinctions and the geology of climate change, I find the responses on Slashdot disturbing. The current biodiversity crisis and the anthropogenic impact on climate are as true as the theory of evolution. For a website where I regularly see creationist science regularly and rightfully dismissed, I am confused how you have allowed yourselves to otherwise ignore modern science. The question of whether it is prudent to stop the current biodiversity crisis, i.e. the extreme increase in extinction rates across all taxa, is another matter. No biologist today can easily say what impact the loss of any one species will have: likely none per case, but potentially a great deal. Our society depends on working ecosystems. Go read about current fishery crises if you are otherwise confused on that matter, or on the incredibly scary "source/sink" dynamics of population ecology. The fact of the matter is that we don't know enough what removing so many "insignificant" taxa will have on the ecosystem. Are you aware of the great diversity of animals that live below your own feet, in the soil below you? What if they were lost? At this point it is likely too late to stop the "sixth mass extinction" entirely, but we have time to make the impact less. With no data on the possible outcome, but the potential for enormous risk, it seems imprudent to not take action. Preserving species also means preserving their ranges, because taxa with small ranges are much more likely to go extinct (see anything by Dave Jablonski). Ranges also shift greatly during climate change. When I saw that episode of Penn and Teller several years ago, I was sad for the girl in the wheelchair, but that plot of land in Florida might actually mean the difference between that bird going extinct or not. Crazy, but, yeah, true. Penn and Teller in that episode, if I remember rightly, offer to kill every chimp on earth to save an AIDS-infected junkie. A polarizing statement but : can anyone really say the research value of the global chimp population is really that low? Thankfully, we don't have to kill a junkie to save chimps. In fact, we don't have to kill anyone to save any animals. We just have to make our lives slightly less pleasant and be willing to say some things are hands off. Amazing, huh? Then we avoid the otherwise unpredictable effects. (TFA is remarkable for being able to put hard numbers to our fears, saying how many taxa of a particular group are in danger.)

Re:Bullshit!

It is perfectly natural for plants and animals to go extinct.

But there ought to be cause for concern when so many are about to go extinct at once. Whether or not it's a natural disaster or a human-caused disaster can be debated until the cows come home, but the planet is changing right now, causing irreparable damage.

From the article you linked.

But even the containment of Chytrid might not be enough to save amphibians, which face a barrage of other threats including pollution, the introduction of alien species, habitat destruction, over-collection, and climate change.

Gosh, I guess we shouldn't worry at all then! I mean, if Chytrid is screwing them over, it's not like we should bother with climate change. I mean, why put out a cancer patient on fire? The cancer's going to kill 'em anyway.

It's both!

In addition to what the previous person responding to your post mentioned, it's worth noting that some researchers think the most likely origin of the spread of this fungus to a wide range of habitats is due to widespread use of a research frog species from Africa, though there is some evidence that puts some doubt on that. [cornell.edu]

Another prominent theory is mentioned in the article you linked:

In Costa Rica's Cloud Forest Preserve of the Tropical Science Center, biologist J. Alan Pounds and his colleagues recently reported the total disappearance of the Monteverde harlequin frog, along with one golden toad species -- caused, he said in the journal Nature, by their increased susceptibility to chytrid disease as rising global temperatures have weakened their ability to resist the toxin.

In other words, chytrid is likely to either be an invasive species introduced around the world by human actions or a species that amphibians were previously able to resist before rising temperatures weakened them. Or both. Either way, saying "this time its [sic] not our fault" is disingenuous at best.

Mod Parent up! He is right...

The cause of worldwide amphibian population declines is the Chytrid Fungus. However many do think that global warming is making the situation happen faster and to a more serious degree. Here is some quick links if you want to read more on the subject ...

From Nat Geo:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080401-frog-fungus.html [nationalgeographic.com]

The NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/science/04frog.html [nytimes.com]

The CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no12/03-0804.htm [cdc.gov]

Re:mmmm... mammals...

Great, now we can't eat humans anymore?

Re:The real question...

Heres an idea.. give me a reason why a specific species is worth protecting, and then if you convince me, I'll even fucking help you to save it.

You should qualify that one. Here is a species for you: Homo sapiens. Gotcha. (Wink)

How about this one: wheat. Gotcha again.

Diversity? Thats crap. There are so many species on this planet that we can't even count them.

Here is a question for you: What is the bare minimum number of species you might be comfortable with?

Here is another question for you: If you whittle down the biodiversity of this planet to only a few "essential" species--what will be the consequences? Please cite your sources when you answer. The biased speculation of a non-scientist doesn't count.