"Climate Change Driving Toad Disease from Fungus in Pyrenees."ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
The article, "Climate Change Driving Toad Disease from Fungus in Pyrenees", features the effect of global warming on frogs. The chytrid fungal disease is a deadly fungus that is wiping out toads and frogs. The vast majority of mortalities due to the virus have occurred in areas of high altitude. The disease has , “... severely affected over 700 amphibian species worldwide causing more extinction events than any other infectious disease known to science”. Both the Imperial College London and Zoological Society of London, published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, that “From analysing lake melt and amphibian infection rates over eight years, the researchers found that the earlier that the valley's lakes melted in the springtime, the higher were the rates of infection for both frogs and toads”. This research exemplifies the true devastation that global warming has on frogs, toads, and many other organisms.
As society continues to pollute and release harmful gasses into the atmosphere, the environment takes a toal. It was very powerful when the author includes a quote from scientist Matt Fisher that says, "These findings show yet another devastation of species thanks to human activity”. This quote is truly eye opening because if humans don't start respecting and caring for the enviroment, entire frog and toad species could potentially be wiped out. If these species grew extinct, many ecosystems would alter and be dysfunctional. So not only would frogs and toads be extinct, but thousands of other organisms would be affected, and it is all due to society's poor treatment of the environment.
After reading the article, “ "Climate Change Driving Toad Disease from Fungus in Pyrenees", I believe that the authors delivered their points very well. I really liked how the author used a myriad of quotes from credible sources to prove the great dangers facing toad and frog species. It also thought that the authors organized the article very well. They wrote the article in chronological order, which made sense to the reader because they could understand the cause and effect of everything. On the other hand, the authors did not put enough specific facts into the article. It would have been nice if in addition to adding quotes, the authors could prove the legitimacy of their points by adding detailed data. For example when the author states, “...the higher were the rates of infection for both frogs and toads”, it would have been very smart for the authors to include the specific rates of the infection, rather than displaying the general idea. I also would have liked for the authors to explain exactly how the global warming was causing the disease. It would have been interesting context if the authors included exactly how the disease is formed.
posted fot E. Donohue
Bridget Sands
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio H
14 November 2016
Citation/Hyperlink found on report: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161023190558.htm
"Climate Change Driving Toad Disease from Fungus in Pyrenees."ScienceDaily.
ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
I read Teddy’s report on the ways in which global warming has affected the life of frogs and toads. One example in which Teddy excelled is when he clearly addressed and stated the problem. By being upfront and direct, there was no confusion throughout the rest of the report on which problem he was addressing, it was clear that there was a specific disease, chytrid fungal, along with global warming that was causing a decrease in population. Another notable part of Teddy’s report was the diction, or vocabulary in which he wrote with. By using a more mature tone, the seriousness of the problem was conveyed. Teddy also did a great job in showing how the problem affects more than just the population of frogs, toads, and other amphibians. He described that different ecosystems would be affected, as well as a vast amount of other organisms that depend on frogs and toads for their everyday life.
Although Teddy’s report was well-thought and organized, there were some areas of improvement. He addressed the problem and briefly explained how pollution is hurting the atmosphere and how harmful gases have been released. He didn’t however, explain what was causing these gases and such. To go deeper into this problem, Teddy could’ve done more research on the history of global warming and its direct causes. Another thing Teddy could’ve improved on goes hand in hand with the causes of global warming. He could’ve along with the causes, described ways to prevent global warming. This would prevent the fungal chytrid disease from spreading, and would overall improve the health of the earth. If Teddy included this, he would have spread awareness and help the seriousness of the problem.
Finally, while reading Teddy’s review, I had an “ah-ha” moment. Although previously I knew about global warming and thought of its effect of the overall earth, I have neglected to think about the small species, such as frogs and toads that it also directly affects.