New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Common Weed Killer Disrupts Frog's Sexual Development

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: COURTESY OF TYRONE HAYES/UC Berkeley

Exposure to less than one part per billion of the most commonly used herbicide in the U.S. can feminize male frogs, according to a new study. The findings, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that concentrations of chemicals considered safe for humans can have insidious effects on amphibians and could be contributing to the global decline in their populations.

Tyrone B. Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues studied the effects of atrazine, a widely used weed killer, on the growth of the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis (see image). The researchers exposed larvae and tadpoles to varying levels of the chemical and found that concentrations of atrazine as low as 0.1 part per billion affected the sexual development of the animals. Some 16 percent of the animals subjected to such concentrations, the investigators determined, either had more than the normal number of sexual organs or had both male and female organs. None of the control animals experienced such abnormalities. The team further found that 80 percent of adult males that had been exposed to the chemical had smaller-than-average vocal organs and many exhibited testosterone levels below those found in normal females. "If such effects occur in the wild," the authors conclude, "exposed animals would suffer impaired reproductive function."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The frogs probably experienced these extreme consequences because they spent so much time immersed in water contaminated with the chemical. It is unlikely that atrazine has such severe effects on humans, Hayes says, because people are not exposed to it for long periods of time. But because the concentrations that affected the animals were so small--30 times lower than the current allowable limit in drinking water--the findings support the use of amphibians as environmental sentinels. Says Theo Colborn of the World Wildlife Fund: the work "demonstrates the need to do research on the safety of chemicals in the field where the animals live and at the levels to which they are exposed."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe