The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An examination of amphibian sensitivity to environmental contaminants: are amphibians poor canaries?
Abstract
Nearly two decades ago, the global biodiversity crisis was catapulted to the front pages of newspapers with the recognition of worldwide amphibian declines. Amphibians earned their appellation, ‘canaries in a coal mine’, because of apparent high sensitivity to human‐mediated environmental change. The most frequently cited causes for high susceptibility include permeable skin, a dual aquatic‐terrestrial life cycle and a relatively rudimentary immune system. While some researchers have questioned the basis for the canary assertion, there has been no systematic evaluation of amphibian sensitivity to environmental challenges relative to other taxa. Here, we apply a database representing thousands of toxicity tests to compare the responses of amphibians relative to that of other taxonomic groups. The use of standardized methods combined with large numbers of identical challenges enables a particularly powerful test of relative effect size. Overall, we found that amphibians only exhibit moderate relative responses to water‐borne toxins. Our findings imply that, as far as chemical contaminants are concerned, amphibians are not particularly sensitive and might more aptly be described as ‘miners in a coal mine’. To the extent that amphibian declines have been mediated by chemical contaminants, our findings suggest that population losses and extinctions may have already occurred in a variety of taxa much more sensitive than amphibians. Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 60–67
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians
Wake, D. B., & Vredenburg, V. T. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0801921105 · Cited by 1,786
Cited by
Jetz, W., & Pyron, R. A. (2018) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0515-5 · Cited by 607
The cause of global amphibian declines: a developmental endocrinologist's perspective
Hayes, T. B., Falso, P., Gallipeau, S., & Stice, M. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.040865 · Cited by 451
Understanding of the impact of chemicals on amphibians: a meta‐analytic review
Egea‐Serrano, A., Relyea, R. A., Tejedo, M., & Torralva, M. (2012) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.249 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Kerby, J. L., Richards‐Hrdlicka, K. L., Storfer, A., & Skelly, D. K.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12-21
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 60-67
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2132343055
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: An examination of amphibian sensitivity to environmental contaminants: are amphibians poor canaries? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01399.x
- The paper
- Kerby, J. L., Richards‐Hrdlicka, K. L., Storfer, A., & Skelly, D. K. (2010). An examination of amphibian sensitivity to environmental contaminants: are amphibians poor canaries? Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01399.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.