River Otters Exposed to Banned Chemicals

otter teamRiver otters have made a remarkable comeback in the last few decades, particularly in Illinois, as we reported recently. However, those Illinois river otters have significant amounts of long-banned chemicals — such as PCBs and DDE (a chemical that results from the breakdown of DDT) — in their tissues, a recent study from the Illinois Natural History Survey has found.

A press release from the University of Illinois reveals that for one chemical, the concentrations were higher in the otters now than they were when the chemical was in legal use:

The researchers were surprised to find that average concentrations of one of the compounds they analyzed, dieldrin — an insecticide (and byproduct of the pesticide aldrin) that was used across the Midwest before it was banned in 1987 — exceeded those measured in eight river otters collected in Illinois from 1984 to 1989. Liver concentrations of PCBs and DDE (the latter a breakdown product of the banned pesticide DDT) were similar to those in the earlier study, the release says.

Scientifically, this is a mystery still to be solved. Were the chemicals used long after they were banned? Did it take decades for the chemicals to climb the food chain from algae to top predator? Are female otters passing the contaminants to their offspring in their milk?

But for wildlife managers, it has a lesson useful right now. When trying to find causes for unknown population declines, don’t dismiss the effects of toxic chemicals just because those toxic chemicals were banned from use decades ago.

The University of Illinois press release.
The paper, in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. It is a free access journal.

Photo: Samantha Carpenter (left), a wildlife technical assistant with the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS); Kuldeep Singh, pathobiology professor at the U. of I. Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory; Nohra Mateus-Pinilla, an INHS wildlife veterinary epidemiologist; and U. of I. animal sciences professor Jan Novakofski found that Illinois river otters are contaminated with banned pesticides and PCBs.  Credit: L. Brian Stauffer

Frogs and Pesticides

pacific tree frogTwo fungicides are showing up in the tissues of Pacific treefrogs, even those that live in pristine national parks, a recent paper in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry shows. The pesticides aren’t just coming from agricultural operations, but also from illegal marijuana farming.
Read the LiveScience article here.
Find the abstract for the paper here.

A study published in the journal Evolutionary Adaptations found that frogs collected from ponds where their ancestors were likely exposed to the pesticide chlorpyrifos showed greater tolerance to that pesticide themselves, perhaps showing an evolutionary adaptation to surviving exposure to that pesticide.
Read the KQED story here.
See the abstract for the paper here.

Photo: Pacific treefrog, courtesy Washington Dept. of Natural Resources

Vultures As Pollution Sentinels

Turkey_VultureResearchers from the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary in Pennsylvania have been studying vultures throughout the New World to see if they are effective sentinels for environmental pollutants, such as lead.

The theory, says an Associated Press article that ran in the Havasu News (AZ), is with their ability to eat and digest biological toxins, vultures may be accumulating man-made toxins as well. Testing them for toxins may reveal hot spots that can then be investigated.

A Hawk Mountain Sanctuary blog reveals that they have been at this for ten years. The big news today is that they have expanded the study in to Arizona. The hope is that information from the tough vultures will provide more information on the lead poisoning that is killing the already federally endangered California condors.

Read the Associated Press article here.
Read the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary “Vulture Chronicles” blog here.

Photo: Turkey vulture, by Lee Karney, courtesy US Fish and Wildlife Service

Insecticide in Surface Waters

Twelve_Spotted_Skimmer The news is not that imidacloprid is toxic to dragonflies and snails. The chemical is an insecticide after all. No, the surprise in the paper published in PLoS ONE is how much of the stuff was found in surface water. It was enough to kill off 70 percent of the invertebrate species in some places, including mayflies, midges and molluscs.

The Guardian had the story.

Further, the loss of those species might be affecting birds that are aerial foragers, which have been in decline in North America [PDF]. (Well, the molluscs aren’t feeding aerial foragers, but they are the most endangered taxa in North America anyway.)

The study took place in the Netherlands, but if anything imidacloprid use is more widespread here. Food for thought if you are concerned with mysterious declines in dragonflies, molluscs or aerial foragers.

The point of the study was actually to research honeybee decline. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid.

Read The Guardian story here.
Read the PLoS ONE story here. (It’s open access, of course.)

Photo: Twelve-spotted skimmer by Rick L. Hansen, courtesy US Fish and Wildlife Service

Pesticides Harm Frogs

Rana_temporaria_LC0183If you take frogs and spray them with some of the fungicides, insecticides and herbicides most commonly sprayed on crops, they will die. That is the conclusion of a recent paper by German and Swiss researchers in the journal Scientific Reports that received some notice in the European media.

A brief read-through suggests that the researchers stuck three frogs in a bucket then sprayed them with a pesticide.

Needless to say, the pesticide manufacturers, object, saying that the tested conditions are worse than what happens in real life, an article in The Guardian (a British newspaper) reports. The researchers counter in the Guardian article that when multiple applications of the pesticides wash into nearby bodies of water, it’s equivalent to at least one of the test conditions, were a 10 percent solution of the chemicals were used.

Read The Guardian article here.
Read an article in Agence France-Presse (AFP)

This news is interesting, although I have qualms about the methodology (not the direct spraying or even the bucket, but that according to the AFP article only three frogs were used for each test), but the journal, Scientific Reports, is interesting as well. It’s an open-access journal from Nature Publishing. Researchers pay to play. The journal promises on its website that once payment is received, the paper will be published promptly. It also promises at least one peer reviewer.

Read the whole paper here and see what you think, because, you know, it’s open access.

Photo: European common frog, the species in the study, in Germany. Photo by Jörg Hempel, used under Creative Commons license.

Swift Decline: Chimneys or Beetles?

chimney swiftChimney swifts decline 95 percent in Canada between 1968 and 2005. After studying a six-foot deep pile of swift guano in a now-capped chimney on the campus of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, researchers believe that DDTs impact on the beetle population played an important role in the swifts’ decline.

Studying the hard remains of insects in the pile, they found that the birds switched from a diet rich in beetles to one where true bugs (which include cicadas and stink bugs) were dominant.The researchers believe the switch from the energy-rich beetles to the less caloric true bugs was the worst kind of crash diet.

Read the news brief in ScienceNow.
Read the paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. (Open access.)

Photo courtesy of the National Park Service

Light, fertilization, and biodiversity

Fertilizing a grassland will cause plant biodiversity there to decrease. It’s not known why this is so, and one theory says that it is because some fast-growing species shade out slower-growing species. A recent study in the journal Ecology Letters says that it’s not a lack of light, or at least not just a lack of light, that is stifling diversity. The study found that the impact of light availability varied greatly in years when there were droughts.

In dry years more light meant less diversity, but in wet years, more light meant more diversity. Either way, fertilization meant species diversity went down, no matter what the light situation was.

With nutrient pollution such a widespread problem, getting to the bottom of this would be useful in protecting rare plants and threatened ecosystems.This paper doesn’t offer the answer, but adds another piece to the puzzle.

Find the paper here.

A previous paper on the subject appeared in the journal Science two years ago. Find that paper here.

Photo: Bobolink, a grassland bird, courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service

Light, fertilization, and biodiversity

Fertilizing a grassland will cause plant biodiversity there to decrease. It’s not known why this is so, and one theory says that it is because some fast-growing species shade out slower-growing species. A recent study in the journal Ecology Letters says that it’s not a lack of light, or at least not just a lack of light, that is stifling diversity. The study found that the impact of light availability varied greatly in years when there were droughts.

In dry years more light meant less diversity, but in wet years, more light meant more diversity. Either way, fertilization meant species diversity went down, no matter what the light situation was.

With nutrient pollution such a widespread problem, getting to the bottom of this would be useful in protecting rare plants and threatened ecosystems.This paper doesn’t offer the answer, but adds another piece to the puzzle.

Find the paper here.

A previous paper on the subject appeared in the journal Science two years ago. Find that paper here.

Photo: Bobolink, a grassland bird, courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service