Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,023

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses

Open access
Collins, James P., Storfer, Andrew·2003·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Abstract. Reports of malformed amphibians and global amphibian declines have led to public concern, particularly because amphibians are thought to be indicator species of overall environmental health. The topic also draws scientific attention because there is no obvious, simple answer to the question of what is causing amphibian declines? Complex interactions of several anthropogenic factors are probably at work, and understanding amphibian declines may thus serve as a model for understanding species declines in general. While we have fewer answers than we would like, there are six leading hypotheses that we sort into two classes. For class I hypotheses, alien species, over‐exploitation and land use change, we have a good understanding of the ecological mechanisms underlying declines; these causes have affected amphibian populations negatively for more than a century. However, the question remains as to whether the magnitude of these negative effects increased in the 1980s, as scientists began to notice a global decline of amphibians. Further, remedies for these problems are not simple. For class II hypotheses, global change (including UV radiation and global climate change), contaminants and emerging infectious diseases we have a poor, but improving understanding of how each might cause declines. Class II factors involve complex and subtle mechanistic underpinnings, with probable interactions among multiple ecological and evolutionary variables. They may also interact with class I hypotheses. Suspected mechanisms associated with class II hypotheses are relatively recent, dating from at least the middle of the 20th century. Did these causes act independently or in concert with pre‐existing negative forces of class I hypotheses to increase the rate of amphibian declines to a level that drew global attention? We need more studies that connect the suspected mechanisms underlying both classes of hypotheses with quantitative changes in amphibian population sizes and species numbers. An important step forward in this task is clarifying the hypotheses and conditions under which the various causes operate alone or together.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00012.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,023

Metadata

Authors
Collins, J. P., & Storfer, A.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-02-26
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
89-98
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
OpenAlex
W2127218107
Cited by
1,023
References
5
FWCI
41.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00012.x
The paper
Collins, J. P., & Storfer, A. (2003). Global amphibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00012.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.