# Talk:Decline in amphibian populations

Shouldn't this article be named "Decline in Amphibian Populations"?  It is not specifically a frog issue, as is pointed out in the first sentence of the article.Pstevendactylus 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that is where the article is going. Although it should use proper capitalisation convention, and be named: "Decline in amphibian populations". --liquidGhoul 13:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I am watching an Animal Planet program called 'The Vanishing Frog' where they have mentioned various things that I wanted to read more about that I did find in this article about the decline in amphibian populations.  I tried looking up 'frogs' and didn't find what I was looking for.  I also looked up 'drinking water', 'drinking water crisis', and other sites.  To tell you the truth, I am not sure how I did find this one.  Is there anyway this article can be attached to the section on frogs?  It would sure help if someone else was looking for this information.  Thanks, V. Warren  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.94.230 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 

I'm proposing the following:

Background
Natural population fluctuations or problematic declines?
Potential causes of declines
Habitat loss
Habitat fragmentation
Introduced species
UV-B radiation
Chemical contaminants or pollutants
Disease
Chytridiomycosis
Ranavirus
Red-legged disease
Climate change
Over-exploitation
Conservation strategies
Habitat protection
Captive breeding
Notes and references
External links


### Actual status of anphibian populations
I think that it would be of interest to add a topic about this issue to the propoused article structure. Lopezmts 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


### Climate Change?
Umm, the content of the section on climate change is totally misplaced. Rainforest destruction isn't neccesarily caused by climate change (and the article doesn't even state this relationship), and ozone depletion isn't directly related to it either (although climate change may affect the exposure to UV-B for amphibians). I'll see what I can do to put some relevent material in. Uncle-P 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the people who destroy the rainforest and even preventing its death is unavoidable even if we made it illegal for everyone to destroy the rainforest. It's gonna kill itself five million years from now and become savannah anyway. GVnayR (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


#### Climate Change!
There is no section on climate change currently and I believe there should be. Here is some good information for the section: Many amphibians use ponds or streams for breeding and will mate only under specific conditions, which are strongly impacted by climate change. A study in Britain compared amphibians over 20 years and found they are breeding significantly earlier each year, which is a trend associated with global warming. In a more severe case linked to climate change, several frog species were lost to extinction with many more experiencing major population decline in Monteverde, Costa Rica, following several El Nino events which contributed to a drier environment.
Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia
  
~~MacMix~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macmix (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 

Try to avoid statements like: "A recent international convention". If you are going to talk about a date, state the date and don't use words like recent. Wikipedia could be running for 100 years, and if someone comes to this article in 100 years, and it still says "recent", then the information would be innacurate. It is also a relative term, and no-one known when the convention took place. Was  it last year, or ten years ago? --liquidGhoul 13:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I found this article very interesting and I have created an spanish translation for the spanish wikipedia. Congratulations to all who have worked in this fine article. Lopezmts 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope the feminization of frogs is expounded, with the cause being chemical pollutants in water act like or mimic estrogen with a 95-100% feminization of groups exposed to these chemical contaminants in an experiment. Berserkerz Crit 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you know something about this issue. Do you want to expand the article to include this info (using good references of course)? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nah I only read it on Yahoo! News. I've added it already and please see fit to copyedit my edit (I paraphrased the article). I've also added the reference. See that the most important details are added. Poor frogs. =( Berserkerz Crit 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's some info on the subject
I wrote a research paper on frog deformities, which have been rising as frog populations have fallen.  Many of the likely causes are the same ones mentioned in this article, and the two trends seem to be closely linked.  How do you think I should add this material -  as a part of this page, or as its own page?  134.84.96.142 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is well done, but still needs some additional references.  Statements like "there is evidence that..." expecially are in need of a citation.  A few other key facts, like certain diseases impacting the die off and species other than the golden toad dying off in Monteverde also seem to warrant citations. Rlendog (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See article on new hypotheses: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112113708.htm StevePrutz (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have something mentioning how amphibians managed to survive over the last mass extinction (close to end of Cretaceous period- wiped out the dinosaurs). Amphibians have generally seen small numbers of extinctions which makes the current trend all the more alarming. A Yale- graduated science journalist and professor wrote: "Amphibians are, after all, among the planet's great survivors. The ancestors of today's frogs crawled out of the water some 400 million years ago, and by 250 million years ago the earliest representatives of what would become the modern amphibian orders- one includes frogs and toads, the second newts and salamanders, and the third weird limbless creatures called caecilians-had evolved. This means that amphibians have been around not just longer than mammals, say, or birds; they have been around since before there were dinosaurs." 
"The Sixth Extinction," Elizabeth Kolbert, 2014 (Pg.8)
Macmix (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)MacMix

Surely the Killer Fungus, Disease and Chytridiomycosis sections should be combined, they all essentially deal with the same excat problem from different perspectives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.176.15 (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is currently discussed twice; once under the heading of Killer Fungus and once under Chytridiomycosis. Is there a reason for this? 70.79.28.162 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Decline in amphibian populations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091219121411/http://frogs.org:80/index.asp to http://www.frogs.org/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Decline in amphibian populations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029213623/http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v2/issues/frontier_sets/amphibians/pdf/Frontiers-Blaustein-Johnson.pdf to http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v2/issues/frontier_sets/amphibians/pdf/Frontiers-Blaustein-Johnson.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524060207/http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/article_content/leapyear to http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/article_content/leapyear
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/38/1/206.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217133740/http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/pounds-2006-suppl.pdf to http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/papers/pounds-2006-suppl.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1113-frogs.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018180029/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=9&art_id=38447&sid=12249536&con_type=1&d_str=20070216 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=9&art_id=38447&sid=12249536&con_type=1&d_str=20070216
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217145333/http://www.frogweb.gov/ to http://www.frogweb.gov/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210171452/http://alternatives2toxics.pointinspace.com/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=A2T_HerpDB&-loadframes to http://alternatives2toxics.pointinspace.com/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=A2T_HerpDB&-loadframes
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912024029/http://www.qldfrogs.asn.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=36 to http://www.qldfrogs.asn.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=36
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's because of the herbicide atrezine  put in food that leaks into the water. Thebearfootaquarius (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer A. Luedtke; Janice Chanson; Kelsey Neam; et al. (4 October 2023). "Ongoing declines for the world's amphibians in the face of emerging threats" (PDF). Nature. 622 (7982): 308–314. doi:10.1038/S41586-023-06578-4. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 37794184. Wikidata Q123056982.
This paper is free licensed and its images can be useful here. The pdf is in Commons too. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I came to this article while working on biodiversity loss. Some questions and suggestions: why do we distinguish between primary causes and secondary causes? Are we saying the primary cause is that single disease that is mentioned in the lead (chytrid) and all else is just a secondary cause? If chytrid is the number 1 cause then why is this not properly explained in the main text with its own section heading? So far there is only a section heading on "secondary causes" but not one on "primary causes". I think we should drop that distinction between primary and secondary causes.
Also, I would change the section heading of "background" to something more specific. I think "background" is too vague and could be extremely broad. How about just "Observations" in this case? EMsmile (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've made some quick changes along those lines but more work is needed. EMsmile (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)