Intersex · Forested Land Cover and Intersex 0.6 y = ‐0.1499x + 0.1371 04 0.5 o ... Microsoft...
25
Transcript of Intersex · Forested Land Cover and Intersex 0.6 y = ‐0.1499x + 0.1371 04 0.5 o ... Microsoft...
IntersexIntersex
Hermaphrodite
Hermes AphroditeHermes Aphrodite
Amphibian Intersex in Wild Populationsp p
Amphibian Intersex in Wild Populationsp p
Connecticut River ValleyConnecticut River Valley
‐ Undeveloped‐ Agricultural‐ Suburban‐ Urban
Connecticut River ValleyConnecticut River Valley
Undeveloped (Forested)
Connecticut River ValleyConnecticut River Valley
Agriculture
Connecticut River ValleyConnecticut River Valley
Suburban
Connecticut River ValleyConnecticut River Valley
Urban
Site Selection
‐Screened 4774 Ponds
d d‐ Visited 136 Ponds
‐Most rejected:‐ Frogs Absent
‐ Permission Denied
‐ Pond Not There
‐Samples from 24 PondsSamples from 24 Ponds
Dissection and HistologyDissection and Histology
Dissection and HistologyDissection and Histology
Frequency of Intersex in Green FrogsFrequency of Intersex in Green Frogs
Category %
Undeveloped 0
Agriculture 6
Suburban 21
Urban 16
Forested Land Cover and IntersexForested Land Cover and Intersex
0.6
y = ‐0.1499x + 0.13710 4
0.5
ocytes
R² = 0.0864
0.3
0.4
ion with Oo
0.1
0.2
Prop
orti
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Proportion ForestedProportion Forested
Agricultural Land Cover and IntersexAgricultural Land Cover and Intersex
y = ‐0.1357x + 0.1590.5
0.6ocytes
R² = 0.1556
0.3
0.4
on with Oo
0.1
0.2
Prop
ortio
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Proportion AgricultureProportion Agriculture
Suburban Land Cover and IntersexSuburban Land Cover and Intersex
0 6
y = 0.4144x + 0.05570.5
0.6cytes
yR² = 0.2448
0.3
0.4
n with Ooc
0.1
0.2
Prop
ortion
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
b bProportion Suburban
Urban Land Cover and IntersexUrban Land Cover and Intersex
0.6
y = 0.2253x + 0.0544R² = 0.248
0.4
0.5
Oocytes
0 2
0.3
0.4
tion
with
0.1
0.2
Prop
ort
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Proportion Urbanp
Follow Up:
The Ponds of Avon
16 Ponds in One Suburban Town:
Intersex Incidence: 18% of IndividualsIntersex Prevalence: 94% of PondsCaffeine: 87% of Ponds
Estrogenicity
Conclusions
‐ Intersex Frogs Common
‐ Land Cover Strongly Predictive
‐ Intersex Concentrated in Sub/Urban ContextsSub/Urban Contexts
‐ No Evidence of + Assoc b/t Agriculture & Intersex
Conclusions
‐ Intersex Frogs Common
‐ Land Cover Strongly Predictive 56%
‐ Intersex Concentrated in Sub/Urban ContextsSub/Urban Contexts
‐ No Evidence of + Assoc b/t Agriculture & Intersex
0%
Acknowledgments
Susan BoldenSusan BoldenAdrianne SmitsKirstin DionKirstin DionSkelly LabHartford Foundation for Public GivingHartford Foundation for Public GivingCT Institute of Water ResourcesNational Science FoundationNational Science FoundationNational Geographic Society
Agriculture and IntersexAgriculture and Intersex
Pond Corn Tobacco Pasture/Hay Vegetables Tree/Nurs BerriesAG02 X XAG04 XAG18 X X XAG18 X X XAG27 X XAG32 X XAG41 X XAG44 XAG44 XAG57 X XAG60 XAG104 X XAG113 XAG113 X
Prevalence of ‘Intersex Ponds’Prevalence of ‘Intersex Ponds’
Category Intersex in :
Undeveloped 0 of 2 Ponds
Agriculture 4 of 11
Suburban 5 of 6
Urban 3 of 4
The Role of Field Observations in the Study of DiseaseThe Role of Field Observations in the Study of Disease
‘In fact EPA today may be said withoutIn fact, EPA today may be said without exaggeration to be the extended shadow of Rachel Carson.’
‐ J. Lewis (EPA Journal, 1985)
