Fun factoid: in the 1930s, it was discovered that you could inject human urine into African clawed frogs; if the frogs subsequently ovulated, the human was pregnant, and for something like 2 decades this became the universal standard test for human pregnancy. It's thought by some that the circulation of those African clawed frogs introduced chytrid pathogens to habitats around the world, since the first recorded pathological chytrid specimens were from South Africa.
I don't know why, but this conversation reminds me of a guy I used to work with.
The guy had studied animal husbandry and he told my co-workers and me that if you inserted a foreign object (about the size of a quarter) up into the reproductive area of a hen at _just the right time_, the hen would often lay an egg with the foreign object trapped inside.[1]
Our business plan:
* get a bunch of hens
* have guys mail $500 + engagement rings to us.
* insert engagement ring into hen
* ship back ring-encased egg to the dudes.
* dudes ask girlfriends to cook an omelette...
I still wonder how anyone figured that out.
[1] There might have been surgery involved. Can't remember.
Eggs are formed by secretions of the oviduct as the ovum or yolk is passed through the oviduct. Hens are also known to occasionally lays eggs with two yolks or no yolk at all, with the latter often containing a blood clot or random tissue where the yolk is expected to be.
So it was clear that a foreign object planted at the right place and right time could induce the animal to form an egg around it. I'm just not sure if this is reliable enough to create a business around the idea.
Putting aside the bait, the whole story with a Kinder Eggs has become a tale told to illustrate a point, but the story itself is nonsense. The US didn’t specifically ban them, they simply fall under a (sensible) pre-existing law and no one gives enough of a crap to change it. Simply put it’s banned to sell candy with something inedible inside of it. This law goes back to the 1930’s and frankly, makes a lot of sense in the general case.
Besides, slightly modified kinder eggs are sold in the US.
Also known as: "quite logical and sensible comparison everywhere else in the world".
>but the story itself is nonsense. The US didn’t specifically ban them, they simply fall under a (sensible) pre-existing law and no one gives enough of a crap to change it.
Which doesn't change the essence of the story, which is not that the Kinder eggs where purposefully banned themselves, but simply that Kinder eggs are banned (and in general, that they'd ban something like Kinder eggs and co).
"Kinder Surprise eggs are legal in Canada and Mexico, but are illegal to import into the US. In January 2011, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) threatened a Manitoba resident with a $300 (Canadian dollars) fine for carrying one egg across the US border into Minnesota.[43] In June 2012, CBP held two Seattle men for two and a half hours after discovering six Kinder Surprise eggs in their car upon returning to the US from a trip to Vancouver. According to one of the men detained, a border guard quoted the potential fine as US $2,500 per egg.[44]"
Like sure, ban the sale, but why the ownership or importation without intention to sell? That seems to overstep the actual usefulness of the law. Like I can put toys in candy in my home and presumably if I don’t try to sell it, it’s legal.
So all you've really said is that this hypocrisy has been around since the 1930s.
Not putting inedible stuff in candy does make sense to me in the general case.
But frankly, so does basic gun control so what the fuck do I know.
I would also like to add I am of the personal view gun control is very much so unconstitutional. But I also don't think that wanting some basic gun control is a wrong thing. All that contradiction means is that we need to have a very careful discussion before drafting a very careful amendment.
It's pretty easy to permit the right to bare arms while still preventing the sale to anybody off the street. It won't fix everything, but it gets us a hell of the way there.
Being worried about a slippery slope is a concern, that is why I said careful amendment.
Many would argue the kinder egg ban is uunconstitutional. And stuff like is supposed to be left up to the states. But who's willing to fight for the kinder eggs?
Ferrero would be the candidate. I'd say there are big bucks at stake. Marketing value is enormous, the effective ban is such a known thing, it would sell better than water initially.
Yep. There's a few interesting stories about why it's illegal, and a couple of Canadian guys that got in trouble for passing the border with "European" Kinder eggs, a while ago.
The more I understand about science actually works, the more I can't see any reason for someone from 18th century or before not to believe in magic. Especially if he actually did experiments that would confirm this kind of connection - alchemist theories just look like the most logical explanation of such phenomena. (If you don't believe me, just ask Newton).
Why is that everyone in the village died of smallpox, except for the milkmaids, who never got sick? Is this some kind of milkmaid magic? Or is there something in the biographies of each milkmaid that causes them to become... ah, what is the right word? It's almost as if they are, ah, "immune" to smallpox? Is that possible? It's almost as if they get cine (aid) from the cows (vacca). One wonders if we could deliberately give this vacca-cine to people?
Vaccine comes from the latin "vaccinus", a derivative of "vacca" (cow) and means "related to cow" or in this case more like "of cow origin". For example in italian "latte vaccino" means cow milk. So there is no -cine part, only a "-inus" suffix that simply means "related to" or "coming from". You can see that in a lot of words of latin origin. In fact the term "latin" itself comes from "latinus" which means "related to Latium" or "inhabitant of Latium" (a region in central Italy)
Unrelated, but as for the origin of the latin term "vacca", it may come from vedic, with the meaning of "the animal that moos"
I often search for the etymology of words. I used to overthink it when trying to find the right search terms but eventually realised that "[word] etymology" gives pretty much perfect results every time ('vaccine etymology' gave the answer on Google and DuckDuckGo without even needing to click any links).
Just mentioning this for other people who like looking up words. And yes it's obvious... unless you're one of those people who sometimes overthinks search terms.
excellent exploration of this idea in the wonderful history book “The Secrets of Alchemy”.
the author actually followed some alchemical recipes which were thought to be nonsense. yet under the right conditions (using iron implements, bad control of temperatures, impure materials) they produced results that must have seemed miraculous at the time — fluorescent materials, elaborate crystalline structures, and so on.
If I remember correctly frogs were an early model organism for studying fertilization because their eggs are large. Seems reasonable that would extend to early hormone secretion post-fertilization.
There already was some understanding of hormones, and one of the hormones used in the body to regulate pregnancies is also present in urine. Similar mechanisms had been found in other animals, and it turned out they were similar enough to allow the human variant to trigger processes in animal bodies. Mice and rabbits had been used before, so there was logic to testing if it transferred to the frogs too.
openasocket says>"How on Earth does someone discover that? What possible series of events or hypotheses would lead someone to perform such an experiment?
Whoa! No one said that anyone "discovered that", or that "such an experiment" was performed. The article merely said that someone speculated that possibility. To further speculate on hearsay of mere speculation is not wise.
The "it is thought by some that" part is in regards to the circulation spreading pathogens. The OP asserted in definite terms that frogs were injected.
And the precursor to the African clawed frogs test was the Rabbit test[0] where a rabbit would be injected with human urine. Unfortunately for the rabbits, the test required killing them to examine their ovaries.
See now this one makes sense to me, but the frog one seems crazy. If I wanted to know if I was pregnant, my first thought would have instinctively been rabbits.
What a coincidence: I was only yesterday looking up Lancelot Hogben [1], whose probability book using card games and chess is very interesting [2]. I wanted to see if this book was available in print. Today, I see this factoid come up as a top comment.
Hogben was the main statistician instrumental in this research on the African clawed frog.
The reason why clicked on this thread was because I was always intrigued by H. P. Lovecraft's horror towards fungi [3]. I always wonder if he was onto something. :)
I had a roller coaster of emotions reading that comment. It began with "factoid" which immediately triggered in me the same consternation in you, not that I would have posted about it...,
Then I read on about injecting frogs with urine and thought he was retelling an African urban legend. I was impressed with the tale being prefaced with a "factoid" which would be a correct use!
Then I realized it was actually true. But at that point my dismay in the incorrect use of "factoid" after all was completely dwarfed by my shock that injecting frogs with human urine really did determine pregnancy.
>Then I realized it was actually true. But at that point my dismay in the incorrect use of "factoid" after all was completely dwarfed by my shock that injecting frogs with human urine really did determine pregnancy.
That dismay was misplaced. Factoid was used correctly (and can mean both real and fake information -- see my response above).
And X-oid doesn't imply "looks like X but isn't" in general. In most cases it means "in the family of X things" (as per the original etymology).
It's just that some word, like "humanoid" are more useful when referring to non-humans (else we could just say human). Whereas there are many types of trapezoids (for example), there are only one humanity. So our uses for humanoid would either be as a synonym for human (useless), or as meaning "human-like" which makes sense only to apply to non-humans (e.g. aliens, robots, etc).
Eh, it's become acceptable, sure. It's the age old prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate. That same Merriam Webster link you posted also includes, e.g., a definition of "literally" as "figuratively" and our friend "in actuality".
Basically, things are "wrong" for a while, then they pick up steam, and they become right. I suppose "factoid" might have overcome the hurdle and become accepted, but the old stodgy rules are still worth knowing about if you have to write, e.g., an article in the NYTimes or something.
>Eh, it's become acceptable, sure. It's the age old prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate. That same Merriam Webster link you posted also includes, e.g., a definition of "literally" as "figuratively" and our friend "in actuality".
The Oxford dictionary sported the secondary definition of the literally since 1903 -- the use is much older. After over a century of common use and lexicographic registration, I don't think it fits into the prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate anymore (that would hold for more modern mistakes, not century-old established language -- do those people also argue that "awesome" e.g. is something that inspires dread, as per the original meaning of awe?).
Or, rather, the dictionary shows that it has been used incorrectly for at least a few years. Knowing what the ending -oid means clearly shows the usage wasn't correct.
"I could care less" is also "correct" according to your criterion.
>Or, rather, the dictionary shows that it has been used incorrectly for at least a few years. Knowing what the ending -oid means clearly shows the usage wasn't correct.
Or you don't know what -oid means either.
Oid doesn't strictly mean "looking like but not being X". Some words ending in -oid can mean that, but generally just means "having the form of X, belonging to the class of X" etc. From the ancient Greek -oides.
Dictionary again:
-oid. a suffix meaning “resembling,” “like,” used in the formation of adjectives and nouns (and often implying an incomplete or imperfect resemblance to what is indicated by the preceding element)
Note the "often", not always.
And not at all mandatory at the original ancient Greek -oeides where -oid was adopted from, for math, zoology, medicine, etc. It means both "likeness" (so alike, but not X), and "form" (belonging to the family of things with X form).
It doesn't get its "looks but isn't" from sharing the same ending as "humanoid". The same way an arachnoid is still an arachnid.
-oid just means "having the form of" (from the ancient Greek, oeides, meaning "of the type"/"belonging to the class"/"having the form of").
Sometimes this implies "looking like, but not being the thing" (like in humanoid, else we'd just say "human"), but in other words it just means "belonging to that family".
Factoids are meant to be small interesting tidbits (facts).
Quite often what are presented as factoids are bogus (e.g. urban legends reproduced by journalists to fill "Did you know that?" style columns).
Dictionary covers both meanings:
1) an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.
2) a brief or trivial item of news or information.
But as you can see, the 1st meaning is not because of the "-oid" making such a meaning mandatory (else the world wouldn't have the second meaning, not to mention all the other words that end in -oid, but still don't imply a mere look-alike).
It wasn't that I had no idea what -oid meant (humanoid etc. made it fairly obvious), it was just that seeing it spelled out explicitly made me make a connection I hadn't before. Similarly with Android -- never realized it's andro (man) + [o]id.
Just thinking about how much work and research from organizations like the CDC put in to preventing another Spanish flu-like pandemic for humans, it seems shockingly obvious that pandemics would be occurring for other species where technology and quarantine are not as strictly used. Its only through observations like this that I've realized how devastating the impact of contaminated ecosystems must be. I suppose that's why I've needed to check all those boxes about visiting farms/smuggling produce whenever I go through customs.
Since this article is specifically about frogs, I can't help but wonder if the drastic reduction of insect biomass isn't contributing to their decline. With numbers as drastic as a 75% decline in certain areas[0], it's hard to imagine frogs/birds/etc. aren't suffering from population decline due to reduced food availability.
Its worse than a pandemic because its across so many species simultaneously. Imagine if a flesh eating fungus was killing all mammals around you. What would be the human response to this? It would be a lot stronger than quarantine.
We would immediately slaughter all mammal pets. All rodents would be fumegated from cities whilst everyone wears gas masks in the streets. With children going to school in tented buildings.
Consider this has been going on for decades because real immunity is low, just resistance is better with some species. We would have whole generations maimed from amputations to save their life.
If this was something that affected us more directly it would be the bleakest existence you could imagine.
And let's not forget frogs eat insects. The point being, a weakened frog might become even more so from lack of food.
It seems that humans are so busy, self-absorbed and "proud" about what we can do that we're not considering other species might not be as resilient to changes in the habitat. Perhaps that's too obvious for us?
This is a lesson learnt in Australia and even more so in New Zealand. Quarantine upon entry is strict. I returned to Australia from New Zealand with dirty hiking boots and they washed them before letting me carry them through. Not declaring or disposing of plant or animal matter is subject to massive fines.
The die-off started in the 70s when climate change was < 0.5C. OTOH, the story of globalization introducing pests/pathogens to naive populations is an extremely common one, and there's no reason to doubt it here.
Oh yes there is. From the study just cited: “While a large percentage of these declines are attributable to direct anthropogenic effects, such as habitat loss, a substantial amount (48%) are classed as ‘enigmatic‘ declines with no identifiable cause (Stuart et al. 2004).“
Also: “We have recently shown that B. dendrobatidis widely infects amphibian populations across Europe (Garner et al. 2005), suggesting that introductions of the pathogen are rather more ancient than were previously expected. However, mass mortalities are highly clustered within a relatively few high-altitude areas in Spain and France (S. Walker, M. C. Fisher & J. Bosch 2003–2006, unpublished data). These data are inconsistent with a wave-like front of introductions across Europe driving contemporary epidemics and suggest that environmental conditions influence host–pathogen dynamics in determining the outcome of infection within a site of introduction.”
If we weren't at the top of the house of cards, we'd have nothing to worry about. But unless you can stomach eating nothing but genetically enhanced yeast, it might be worth trying to keep some other species down the food chain around.
> Anthropogenic trade and development have broken down dispersal barriers, facilitating the spread of diseases that threaten Earth’s biodiversity. We present a global, quantitative assessment of the amphibian chytridiomycosis panzootic, one of the most impactful examples of disease spread, and demonstrate its role in the decline of at least 501 amphibian species over the past half-century, including 90 presumed extinctions. The effects of chytridiomycosis have been greatest in large-bodied, range-restricted anurans in wet climates in the Americas and Australia. Declines peaked in the 1980s, and only 12% of declined species show signs of recovery, whereas 39% are experiencing ongoing decline. There is risk of further chytridiomycosis outbreaks in new areas. The chytridiomycosis panzootic represents the greatest recorded loss of biodiversity attributable to a disease. [emphasis added]
Damn. I mean, I hate those Asian stink bugs, but at least they aren't killing me.
Interesting, I had always been told it was pollution... I used to live next to a river and we always had tons of frogs. Then after a few years, almost all of them disappeared. I heard people claim pollution, but we were still getting our drinking water from the same source, so I had my doubts.
This makes way more sense and I'm surprised I had no idea.
Every ecological disaster is our fault by definition. If it's not in some way anthropogenic, it's "natural" and therefore OK. Dinosaurs being wiped out? Meh, asteroids happen. Mammoths being wiped out by cavemen? Ecological disaster!
In defence of these terms and some quarters of humanity; we often try to save keystone species at risk of extinction even when we are not at fault (see the Tasmanian Devil for example).
Global warming was the scientific consensus a few years ago. It was thought that increased temperatures and radiation adversely affected amphibian eggs causing a failure to hatch.
> Our analysis shows a significant association between change in local climatic variables and the occurrence of chytridiomycosis within this region. Specifically, we show that rising temperature is linked to the occurrence of chytrid-related disease, consistent with the chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis. We show that these local variables are driven by general circulation patterns, principally the North Atlantic Oscillation. Given that B. dendrobatidis is known to be broadly distributed across Europe, there is now an urgent need to assess the generality of our finding and determine whether climate-driven epidemics may be expected to impact on amphibian species across the wider region.
So yes, trade and travel spread the fungus. And increasing temperature decreases resistance to it. Very succinct: "chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis".
Global warming I swear can be used to retroactively explain any anomaly just because the effects of temperature on different processes has so many difficult to predict side effects. Like, if America suddenly had a mini ice age next year I'm pretty sure AGW would be used to retroactively explain how this might happen. Or if crops die, etc.
I agree but, come on. It's a cop out. Anyone can retroactively fit a model. It's much harder to have a model that makes good predictions. It's tiring when everything from insect populations, to depression in humans, to polar vortexes are all retroactively attributed to AGW. Of course, existing models would never predict these things, they are simply observed, and then a climate related cause is sought out and pinned on.
I agree that it's lazy to just say "AGW" for any problem.
But I also think it's lazy to dismiss theories that point to AGW as a cause simply because no model predicted it in advance.
There are an infinite number of possible effects (including amphibian funguses), modeling each specific one and knock-on effects is an exercise in futility. It's much more reasonable to simply be responsible about the attribution of any effects we do observe, and only focus on modeling the most devastating predicted effects of AGW rather than every potential one (including amphibian funguses).
My main concern is things are not going to be better researched because climate change is the simple answer, why look further? I work at a university, talk to lots of scientists and academics in my free me, these researchers are just as human as anyone else and simple answers are just as appealing and knee-jerk reactions are just as common
This is a false dichotomy and betrays a lack of understanding of the actual work of the scientific community here. The mortality of the fungus and amphibian behavior are both affected by climactic conditions. It is far from “easy” to attribute the epidemic to global warming but careful studies are illustrating how different temperature envelopes and humidity can cause this fungus to thrive in amphibian populations. I suggest you take a few minutes to read this study, it might change your perspective.
Actually neither of those scenarios seems right to me. At some point scientists should generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then test to falsify that hypothesis.
You are correct that this step seems to be omitted in much popular writing about science.
This is a sciency-sounding position that actually misrepresents science. Since scientists are not gods, just as with macroeconomics and astrophysics and paleontology, climate science cannot readily “test to falsify a hypothesis.” We are restricted to observing the universe and hoping to come across useful data we can compare and contrast. Thus to imply that the inability to regularly cleanly isolate and test variables in these disciplines is unscientific is itself a disservice to science.
No, that pretty much is the definition of modern (Popperian) science. At least the sort of science that we should require in order to justify rewiring trillion-dollar economies.
This "astronomy makes no predictions" meme is goofy. Halley got a comet named after him by predicting the year of its return. That was a completely falsifiable hypothesis. If you like something a bit more current, there are plenty of falsifiable hypotheses concerning e.g. neutrino mass that various underground/under-ice detectors will test in the next few years.
Such hypotheses are not inherently impossible for climate science.
Why would you expect us to have good models for unprecedented events of unprecedented scale? I’m all for high standards but this isn’t exactly a simple thing you’re pining for.
Similar to how Lyme disease has spread to ticks over most of the USA because climate change has expanded the viable range, one is still more likely to get exposed to it in the original area of the Northeast but it's now found in ticks spread over the country, and this is true in other countries as well.
It's interesting that warming would make it easier for ticks from the Northeast to travel south. Or, alternatively, for Borrelia bacteria to do the same, since I have it on good authority that the South has had ticks for a long time.
I'll translate because it's interesting and was not immediately obvious (to me)
The south had ticks before (global warming), yet no (few?) Borrelia bacteria.
Therefore there is no indication other than a timely coincidence that global warming is responsible for Borrelia bacteria appearing more frequently in the south.
There were articles last year that did not reference coincidence, but expanded range of the carriers for the bacteria. The first story is interesting because there's a bit about the scientists who are trying to disrupt the lifecycle of the bacteria on a small scale to find a solution.
I don't see it any different than malaria, caused by plasmodium and also a serious health problem in some parts of the world ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria ): not all mosquitoes carry malaria, but the only way to eradicate malaria in some area is to manage to not have mosquitoes there, it's known since approximately the end of the 19th century, and still true. And the spreading of malaria has also different dynamics from the spreading of all of mosquitoes. So yes, the changes in environment that make for the insects to easy to spread in the areas where they couldn't before is something that should concern the humans, especially if there is a proof that humans helped the spread.
trade has always opened up specie to increased risk, ships crossing the oceans, canals, and more. Look at the issues the Atlantic origin lamprey's had on the Great Lakes.
The answer is most likely pesticides. Fungus is ancient. If a frog's immune system has been compromised it's probably susceptible to all manner of ailments.
Don't let the pesticide industry convince you their products are safe.
The same could be said about the black plague. Why haven’t we already evolved to be immune to these thugs by now? Yet somehow new diseases continue to emerge and kill millions.
Really the same could be said of all deadly diseases.
There actually is, if you click on the timestamp of a comment, you'll get a page dedicated to the comment where you can click "flag" to report it. You won't be able to add any reasons though.
"The fungus turned up in other countries, but studies of its DNA suggest that Bd originated on the Korean Peninsula. In Asia, amphibians seem impervious to Bd, but when it got to other parts of the world — probably via the international trade in pet amphibians — the pathogen reached hundreds of vulnerable species."
How long will it be before we realize that perhaps the globe wasn't designed for globalization?
Note: I'm not a Luddite. I'm simply doing the analysis and stating the obvious.
The globe wasn't designed, and those animals didn't choose immunity. It was developed via evolution. And evolution will similarly wipe out massive numbers of species due to global exposure of pathogens. We are in the midst of the greatest extinction event this world has ever seen. Keep your head down and may the antigens be in your favor.
That's my point. Evolution was a long, slow, and often isolated process. When you begin to jet things from one side of the planet to the other you're doing things that are entirely atypical of evolution.
The point being, any species that developed and survived via evolution is unfit for speed and breadth of the current human + technology modern version of "evolution".
maybe this is because i am no longer a kid and not spending as much time outside or due to location, but i can’t remember the last time i saw a frog, worm, toad, or turtle in the wild.
Toads and turtles are everwhere around my house in the summer (US Midwest). Hear frogs all night too. I accidentally ran over a turtle with my lawn mower last summer. Felt pretty bad about it and I really try to watch for them now.
In my childhood regions, amphibians and reptiles were at least 4x in the 60s. They tend to be more tightly clustered now. The clusters are more distant from each other, and the spaces between more sparsely populated. Not in any danger of extinction just yet, at least for the common species. Perhaps many minor species are gone - I wouldn't be able to tell. Just about the only things to thrive have been feral cats, birds, bats, squirrels, mice, rabbits and deer. They are an absolute infestation.
My folks in the midwest built a couple of ponds in their back yard a few years back. They had some frogs move in, from parts unknown, before they were even complete. Their population has remained small and steady and, while they do obviously make some noise, they're not a nuisance.
I see worms and snails where I live in SoCal over the winter, spring, and early summer. When the rain stops, the marine layer keeps the grass and oftentimes sidewalks a little wet, which brings them out. They're never around when it starts to get really dry in the mid/late summer and through the fall. It's actually quite challenging to avoid them while walking on the sidewalks when we have rain.
I'm not trying to dismiss what you're saying, because I've lived in places in SoCal and the south where I haven't seen these things, as well. I'm only adding my own anecdata to the pile.
edit/ I meant to mention... When I lived along the central CA coast, we had a really large cohort of California Tiger Salamanders on our lot. It frightened me the first time that I saw one of them, I was convinced that it was a snake until I was able to relocate it. From then on, they were easy to spot. I'd reckon we had between 1 and 2 dozen of them year-round between the front and the back and our neighbors, that we spoke to, all had them, as well. Additionally, where I live today, we have _a lot_ of lizards and considerable insect life. We're close to the Santa Ana foothills on one side and a nature preserve on the other, and I'm sure that helps.
I fled to the US in the mid 60s. And I drifted a lot. I remember walking country roads at night, in summer, and being unable to avoid stepping on frogs. It ain't like that now.
My parents took us on the "Vacation"-style cross country car trip (yes, in a station wagon) in 1978. I remember that nearly every motel pool had frogs in it.
As a kid, when my parents would drive us on long journeys the front of the car would be caked with dead insects and that doesn't happen anymore on long drives. Something drastic is happening.
This entire spring so far I have encountered only a single bee. We have fruit trees in full bloom now (Oregon) but no bees to feast on the veritable smorgasbord of nectar. Now that is weird.
I can't keep the dang frogs and toads out of my pool. I almost never see them in my yard, but in the warmer months, I see them every single morning in my pool. I live in the US Mid West.
I live on a tidal marsh in the south east. In the spring time there are so many frogs outside that it is too loud to open the windows. I don't see many toads, but a lot of turtles live in the nearby pond along with a few gators.
I live near some wetlands and any time it rains or is damp overnight we get frogs everywhere. I definitely don't see as many earthworms as I used to, though. Probably because (like you) I don't spend as much time outside.
> In 2013, researchers discovered that a related fungus was attacking fire salamanders in Belgium. Called Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal for short), it seemed poised to do to salamanders what Bd has done to frogs.
> But this time, things are playing out differently.
> Researchers discovered the outbreak and identified Bsal quickly. They immediately began running experiments to understand the threat it posed. Thanks to barriers to trade now in place, Bsal has yet to threaten another species anywhere. [...]
In the article it's stated that there's a similar fungus killing salamanders as an example of science learning from the frog illness and applying quarantine/scientific resolution methods earlier for reduced mortality.
I wonder if there is a good way to test for this, and if it affects humans.
Kambo[0] is a medicine extracted from the South American Phyllomedusa Bicolour[1] tree frog that is used by humans, I believe without any processing. (As if it weren't dangerous enough already...!). I hope practitioners (e.g. the IAKP[2] take note) can come up with a way to test before using it.
I have an idea. Frogs are used in labs since a long, long time. We know a lot about their embryology and genetics. They have big eggs with easily accessible cells and lay plenty of them.
If we can make a transgenic tomato adding genes for frost resistance, we probably could make a transgenic frog adding korean frog genes for fungus resistance. Then release then in a safely enclosed area. If both kinds of frogs keep vanishing at the same pace, then fungus is a symptom and not a cause (or we did it wrong). If not, we would have discovered a last try to gain a precious time and save thousands of species in captiviy even if the zoos are in areas contaminated by the fungus.
Not that this makes it a non-problem, but I recall that endothermic species are relatively fungus-resistant given that most fungi prefer cooler temperatures.
I'm wondering if any epidemiologists could weigh in wrt the risk of spread to humans or other animals.
This study explores exactly this question. In short, climate change moderated the temp of one climate which would normally kill off the fungus, while amphibians seek cool shelter during the hottest days thus keeping the fungus alive and also speeding transmission.
Key passages:
”In this region, global warming is moderating the naturally severe cool conditions, and among other consequences, as Harvell et al. (2002) pointed out, shorter, milder winters are expected to increase the incidence of disease.“
”...However, this recent warming has not increased the number of days where the maximum temperatures exceed 28°C, the critical threshold for successful persistence of B. dendrobatidis. In addition, even if this limit could be achieved in the area, survival and persistence of the pathogen may occur as a consequence of the active avoidance of high temperatures by the metamorphs preferential selection of damp and cool habitats within which to hide.”
”...On the other hand, the sixth climatic factor, relating to the abundance of mist and dewfall, presents the highest values during May, when the breeding period of the amphibians takes place. Therefore, as may occur with the temperature scenario discussed earlier, a value of 100% relative humidity provided by overnight dewfall and mists during the breeding period could be a key determinant in facilitating the transmission of fungus...”[1]
This is why climate change is so dangerous. We don’t understand how interconnected and complex ecosystems are to truly predict its effects.
