Possible Ddt Mortality In Spotted Frogs
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Possible Ddt Mortality In Spotted Frogs as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,667
- Pages: 4
Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
Western Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) Mortality Following Forest Spraying of DDT In June and July of 1974, 172,695 hectares of forest in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho were sprayed with 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl) ethane (DDT) for control of the Douglas fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (Graham et al. 1975). State and federal agencies undertook an extensive environmental monitoring program in connection with the DDT application (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). That program included no planned monitoring of amphibians. I made routine observations of western spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, prior to the DDT application, and discovered dead frogs after the DDT application. The decision to sample frogs was not made until the dead frogs had been discovered. The requirements of the planned monitoring severely limited the field and laboratory resources that could be devoted to studying frogs. Methods On 28 May 1974, I heard and saw R. pretiosa at a 0.05 ha pond behind a man-made dam on Mill Creek at 45° 32’ 53” N latitude, 118° 22’ 32” W longitude, Umatilla County, Oregon. On 12 June 1974, I captured and released 14 of those frogs. The vicinity of the pond was sprayed on 25-26 June 1974 with DDT in auxiliary solvent and fuel oil at a nominal rate of 0.72 kg DDT/ha, and a nearby area was sprayed on 26-27 June 1974 at a nominal rate of 0.65 kg DDT/ha (Graham et al. 1975). On 20 July 1974 I collected 20 dead frogs (all that I found) and six live frogs (not all that I saw) from the pond. The dead frogs were on the bottom, concentrated in and around a small “spring box” near the pond inlet. The dead frogs were intact, but showed some “bloating” from decomposition. I put the live grogs in three acetone-washed cans in pairs, and the dead frogs in three acetone-washed cans in groups of six, seven, and seven, and froze them on dry ice in the field. The frogs were kept frozen during shipment to the laboratory. The Oregon Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services used a modified Mills, Onley, Gaither procedure (Anon. 1972) to measure DDT and DDT analog residues in 25gram samples from each can by taking enough frog tissue to give the desired weight. Not all frogs in each can were tested. On 8, 9, and 10 June 1976, I walked around the pond and counted 10, 6, and 10 live R. pretiosa, respectively. I visited the pond on a number of occasions before and after the DDT application; the only time I found dead frogs was on the first visit after the DDT application. Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
Results The results of the DDT residue analyses appear in Table 1. The sample sizes are too small and the sampling scheme was too haphazard to warrant the assumptions necessary for meaningful statistical analysis. Table 1. Residues (parts per million) of DDT and its analogs in western spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, approximately three weeks after DDT application. Live Frog Samples 1 Lipid Basis (ppm)
p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE p,p’-DDT tot DDT
Wet Weight Basis (ppm)
p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE p,p’-DDT tot DDT
Percent of Total
p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE p,p’-DDT tot DDT
20.1 10.0 96.4 127 0.346 0.173 1.66 2.18 15.9 7.9 76.2 100.0
Dead Frog Samples
2 16.6 9.60 56.3 82.5 0.166 0.096 0.563 0.825 20.1 11.6 68.2 100.0
3 30.5 9.70 132 172 0.403 0.128 1.75 2.28 17.7 5.6 76.7 100.0
1 487 26.7 413 927 6.67 0.366 5.67 12.7 52.5 2.9 44.6 100.0
2 247 15.3 13.2 276 2.27 0.141 0.122 2.53 89.6 5.6 4.8 100.0
3 155 7.74 14.5 177 1.92 0.096 0.179 2.20 87.4 4.4 8.2 100.0
Discussion Laboratory studies (Ellis et al. 1944; Logier 1949; Boyd et al. 1963; Ferguson and Gilbert 1967; Sanders 1970; Tucker and Crabtree 1970) establish that DDT is toxic to frogs, but are not otherwise helpful in evaluating the data reported here because none relates DDT tissue residues in frogs to DDT mortality. The application rate of DDT that preceded the frog mortality I observed was lower than that associated with frog mortality observed by others in the field (Lackey and Steinle 1945; Tiller and Cory 1947; Logier 1949; Fashingbauer 1957). The frogs I collected presumably had background levels of DDT in their tissues prior to the DDT application. All of the species (fish, birds, and mammals) for which prespray residue data were collected in the course of the monitoring program showed prespray “background” levels of DDT in their tissues (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). Cory et al. (1970) found background levels of DDT in frogs from remote areas of the California Sierra Nevada that had never been treated with DDT. Kuhr (1974) found DDT Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
residues in frogs from a stream near an orchard that had not been treated with DDT for 12 years. The residue levels reported here probably were above prespray background levels, although the absence of prespray residue data precludes knowing that with certainty. Every species monitored as part of the planned monitoring program showed substantial increases in residue levels following the DDT application (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). Meeks (1968) found a similar increase in Rana pipiens after an experimental application of DDT. Conclusions based upon comparison of DDT levels between the live and dead frogs must be drawn with caution. In addition to the uncertainty due to the small sample sizes and the haphazard sampling scheme, the situation is further confused by possible postmortem changes in tissue density, by the unknown effects of death upon the movement of DDT and its analogs into or out of a frog’s body, and by the possible contribution to residues by contaminated food in a frog’s gut. The relatively higher levels of DDD in dead frogs may be the result of postmortem microbial conversion of DDT to DDD (Spencer 1967) and should not be assigned any toxicological significance without further investigation. Notwithstanding the uncertainty regarding the residue data, the data and observations reported here constitute circumstantial evidence suggesting that application of DDT at a nominal rate of 0.7 kg/ha caused mortality in Rana pretiosa. R. pretiosa is protected in Oregon by administrative rules of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. It may be absent from its former range in western Oregon and Washington and has a spotty distribution in the Cascade Mountains (Nussbaum et al. 1983; Storm 1986). Given that status and the observations reported here, R. pretiosa should be presumed for decision-making purposes to be sensitive to DDT, and possibly to other insecticides, when chemical pest control is being considered near R. pretiosa habitat. Acknowledgments My observations were made while I was engaged in monitoring DDT residues in small mammals as an employee of the Oregon State Department of Human Resources Health Division. The Health Division conducted that monitoring with financial assistance under Environmental Protection Agency contracts 68-02-0708 and 68-01-3130. Residue analyses were performed by the Oregon State Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services with financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Brent Frazier assisted in the field. Dr. Michael Wehr read and commented on an early draft of the manuscript. Literature Cited Anonymous. 1972. Modification of Mills, Onley, Gaither method for the determination of multiple organochlorine pesticides and metabolites in human or animal adipose Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
tissue. In: J.F. Thompson (ed.) Analysis of pesticide residues in human and environmental samples, EPA manual of analytical methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 5.A(1), 14 pp. Boyd, C.E., S.V.Vinson, and D.E. Ferguson. 1963. Possible DDT resistance in two species of frogs. Copeia 1963(2):426-429. Cory, L., P. Fjeld, and W. Serat. 1970. Distribution patterns of DDT residues in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Pesticides Monitoring J. 3(4):204-211. Ellis, M.M., B.A. Westfall, and M.D.Ellis. 1944. Toxicity of DDT to frogs and goldfish. Science 100:477. Fashingbauer, B.A. 1957. The effects of aerial spraying of DDT on wood frogs. Flicker 29:160. Ferguson, D.E. and C.C. Gilbert. 1967. Tolerances of three species of anuran amphibians to five chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. J. Miss. Acad. Sci. 13:135-138. Graham, D.A., J. Mounts, and D. Almas. 1975. 1974 Cooperative Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth Control Project. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 74 p. Kuhr, R.J., A.C. Davis, and J.B.Bourke. 1974. DDT residues in soil, water, and fauna from New York apple orchards. Pesticides Monitoring J. 7(3/4):200-204. Lackey, J.B. and M.L. Steinle. 1945. Toxicity of DDT to aquatic life. U.S. Pub. Health Repts. Suppl. 186:80-89. Logier, E.B.S. 1949. Effect of DDT on amphibians and reptiles. Dept. Lands and Forests, Ontario, Biol. Bull. 2:49-56. Meeks, R.L. 1968. The accumulation of 36Cl ring-labeled DDT in a freshwater marsh. J. Wildl. Man. 32(2):376-398. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Idaho Press, Moscow. 332 p. Sanders, H.O. 1970. Pesticide toxicities to tadpoles of the western chorus frog, Pseudacris triseriata, and Fowler’s toad, Bufo woodhousei fowleri. Copeia 1970(2):246-251. Spencer, D.A. 1967. Problems in monitoring DDT and its metabolites in the environment. Pesticides Monitoring J. 1(2):54-57. Storm, R.M. 1986. Current status of Oregon amphibians and reptiles. pp. 8-1 to 8-7. In: D.B. Marshall, ed. Oregon nongame wildlife management plan. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 564 p. Tiller, R.E. and E.N. Cory. 1947. Effect of DDT on tidewater fish. J. Econ. Ent. 40:431433. Tucker, R.K. and D.G. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Resource Publ. No. 84. 131 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Environmental Monitoring Program. 1974 Cooperative Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth Control Project. “Summary Report. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland. 40 pp.
Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
Western Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) Mortality Following Forest Spraying of DDT In June and July of 1974, 172,695 hectares of forest in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho were sprayed with 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl) ethane (DDT) for control of the Douglas fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (Graham et al. 1975). State and federal agencies undertook an extensive environmental monitoring program in connection with the DDT application (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). That program included no planned monitoring of amphibians. I made routine observations of western spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, prior to the DDT application, and discovered dead frogs after the DDT application. The decision to sample frogs was not made until the dead frogs had been discovered. The requirements of the planned monitoring severely limited the field and laboratory resources that could be devoted to studying frogs. Methods On 28 May 1974, I heard and saw R. pretiosa at a 0.05 ha pond behind a man-made dam on Mill Creek at 45° 32’ 53” N latitude, 118° 22’ 32” W longitude, Umatilla County, Oregon. On 12 June 1974, I captured and released 14 of those frogs. The vicinity of the pond was sprayed on 25-26 June 1974 with DDT in auxiliary solvent and fuel oil at a nominal rate of 0.72 kg DDT/ha, and a nearby area was sprayed on 26-27 June 1974 at a nominal rate of 0.65 kg DDT/ha (Graham et al. 1975). On 20 July 1974 I collected 20 dead frogs (all that I found) and six live frogs (not all that I saw) from the pond. The dead frogs were on the bottom, concentrated in and around a small “spring box” near the pond inlet. The dead frogs were intact, but showed some “bloating” from decomposition. I put the live grogs in three acetone-washed cans in pairs, and the dead frogs in three acetone-washed cans in groups of six, seven, and seven, and froze them on dry ice in the field. The frogs were kept frozen during shipment to the laboratory. The Oregon Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services used a modified Mills, Onley, Gaither procedure (Anon. 1972) to measure DDT and DDT analog residues in 25gram samples from each can by taking enough frog tissue to give the desired weight. Not all frogs in each can were tested. On 8, 9, and 10 June 1976, I walked around the pond and counted 10, 6, and 10 live R. pretiosa, respectively. I visited the pond on a number of occasions before and after the DDT application; the only time I found dead frogs was on the first visit after the DDT application. Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
Results The results of the DDT residue analyses appear in Table 1. The sample sizes are too small and the sampling scheme was too haphazard to warrant the assumptions necessary for meaningful statistical analysis. Table 1. Residues (parts per million) of DDT and its analogs in western spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, approximately three weeks after DDT application. Live Frog Samples 1 Lipid Basis (ppm)
p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE p,p’-DDT tot DDT
Wet Weight Basis (ppm)
p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE p,p’-DDT tot DDT
Percent of Total
p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE p,p’-DDT tot DDT
20.1 10.0 96.4 127 0.346 0.173 1.66 2.18 15.9 7.9 76.2 100.0
Dead Frog Samples
2 16.6 9.60 56.3 82.5 0.166 0.096 0.563 0.825 20.1 11.6 68.2 100.0
3 30.5 9.70 132 172 0.403 0.128 1.75 2.28 17.7 5.6 76.7 100.0
1 487 26.7 413 927 6.67 0.366 5.67 12.7 52.5 2.9 44.6 100.0
2 247 15.3 13.2 276 2.27 0.141 0.122 2.53 89.6 5.6 4.8 100.0
3 155 7.74 14.5 177 1.92 0.096 0.179 2.20 87.4 4.4 8.2 100.0
Discussion Laboratory studies (Ellis et al. 1944; Logier 1949; Boyd et al. 1963; Ferguson and Gilbert 1967; Sanders 1970; Tucker and Crabtree 1970) establish that DDT is toxic to frogs, but are not otherwise helpful in evaluating the data reported here because none relates DDT tissue residues in frogs to DDT mortality. The application rate of DDT that preceded the frog mortality I observed was lower than that associated with frog mortality observed by others in the field (Lackey and Steinle 1945; Tiller and Cory 1947; Logier 1949; Fashingbauer 1957). The frogs I collected presumably had background levels of DDT in their tissues prior to the DDT application. All of the species (fish, birds, and mammals) for which prespray residue data were collected in the course of the monitoring program showed prespray “background” levels of DDT in their tissues (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). Cory et al. (1970) found background levels of DDT in frogs from remote areas of the California Sierra Nevada that had never been treated with DDT. Kuhr (1974) found DDT Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
residues in frogs from a stream near an orchard that had not been treated with DDT for 12 years. The residue levels reported here probably were above prespray background levels, although the absence of prespray residue data precludes knowing that with certainty. Every species monitored as part of the planned monitoring program showed substantial increases in residue levels following the DDT application (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1981). Meeks (1968) found a similar increase in Rana pipiens after an experimental application of DDT. Conclusions based upon comparison of DDT levels between the live and dead frogs must be drawn with caution. In addition to the uncertainty due to the small sample sizes and the haphazard sampling scheme, the situation is further confused by possible postmortem changes in tissue density, by the unknown effects of death upon the movement of DDT and its analogs into or out of a frog’s body, and by the possible contribution to residues by contaminated food in a frog’s gut. The relatively higher levels of DDD in dead frogs may be the result of postmortem microbial conversion of DDT to DDD (Spencer 1967) and should not be assigned any toxicological significance without further investigation. Notwithstanding the uncertainty regarding the residue data, the data and observations reported here constitute circumstantial evidence suggesting that application of DDT at a nominal rate of 0.7 kg/ha caused mortality in Rana pretiosa. R. pretiosa is protected in Oregon by administrative rules of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. It may be absent from its former range in western Oregon and Washington and has a spotty distribution in the Cascade Mountains (Nussbaum et al. 1983; Storm 1986). Given that status and the observations reported here, R. pretiosa should be presumed for decision-making purposes to be sensitive to DDT, and possibly to other insecticides, when chemical pest control is being considered near R. pretiosa habitat. Acknowledgments My observations were made while I was engaged in monitoring DDT residues in small mammals as an employee of the Oregon State Department of Human Resources Health Division. The Health Division conducted that monitoring with financial assistance under Environmental Protection Agency contracts 68-02-0708 and 68-01-3130. Residue analyses were performed by the Oregon State Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services with financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Brent Frazier assisted in the field. Dr. Michael Wehr read and commented on an early draft of the manuscript. Literature Cited Anonymous. 1972. Modification of Mills, Onley, Gaither method for the determination of multiple organochlorine pesticides and metabolites in human or animal adipose Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
tissue. In: J.F. Thompson (ed.) Analysis of pesticide residues in human and environmental samples, EPA manual of analytical methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 5.A(1), 14 pp. Boyd, C.E., S.V.Vinson, and D.E. Ferguson. 1963. Possible DDT resistance in two species of frogs. Copeia 1963(2):426-429. Cory, L., P. Fjeld, and W. Serat. 1970. Distribution patterns of DDT residues in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Pesticides Monitoring J. 3(4):204-211. Ellis, M.M., B.A. Westfall, and M.D.Ellis. 1944. Toxicity of DDT to frogs and goldfish. Science 100:477. Fashingbauer, B.A. 1957. The effects of aerial spraying of DDT on wood frogs. Flicker 29:160. Ferguson, D.E. and C.C. Gilbert. 1967. Tolerances of three species of anuran amphibians to five chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. J. Miss. Acad. Sci. 13:135-138. Graham, D.A., J. Mounts, and D. Almas. 1975. 1974 Cooperative Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth Control Project. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 74 p. Kuhr, R.J., A.C. Davis, and J.B.Bourke. 1974. DDT residues in soil, water, and fauna from New York apple orchards. Pesticides Monitoring J. 7(3/4):200-204. Lackey, J.B. and M.L. Steinle. 1945. Toxicity of DDT to aquatic life. U.S. Pub. Health Repts. Suppl. 186:80-89. Logier, E.B.S. 1949. Effect of DDT on amphibians and reptiles. Dept. Lands and Forests, Ontario, Biol. Bull. 2:49-56. Meeks, R.L. 1968. The accumulation of 36Cl ring-labeled DDT in a freshwater marsh. J. Wildl. Man. 32(2):376-398. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Idaho Press, Moscow. 332 p. Sanders, H.O. 1970. Pesticide toxicities to tadpoles of the western chorus frog, Pseudacris triseriata, and Fowler’s toad, Bufo woodhousei fowleri. Copeia 1970(2):246-251. Spencer, D.A. 1967. Problems in monitoring DDT and its metabolites in the environment. Pesticides Monitoring J. 1(2):54-57. Storm, R.M. 1986. Current status of Oregon amphibians and reptiles. pp. 8-1 to 8-7. In: D.B. Marshall, ed. Oregon nongame wildlife management plan. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 564 p. Tiller, R.E. and E.N. Cory. 1947. Effect of DDT on tidewater fish. J. Econ. Ent. 40:431433. Tucker, R.K. and D.G. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Resource Publ. No. 84. 131 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Environmental Monitoring Program. 1974 Cooperative Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth Control Project. “Summary Report. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland. 40 pp.
Kirk, James J. 1988. Western spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) mortality following forest spraying of DDT. Herpetological Review 19(3):51-53.
Related Documents
Possible Ddt Mortality In Spotted Frogs
April 2020 0
Frogs
June 2020 8
Frogs
October 2019 13
Ddt In Nj - Poli228
April 2020 3
Spotted Sejarah!!!
May 2020 0