Salamanders slipping away, global warming may be to blame

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Biologists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week that they were unable to find  a pair of previously common Guatemalan salamander species -- Pseudoeurycea brunnata and Pseudoeurycea goebeli -- and  say they are apparently extinct. Numerous other species in Guatemala and Mexico also failed to turn up during several surveys – and others could only be found in the highest mountain elevations.

Lead study author David Wake, an integrative biology professor at the University of California-Berkeley, blames the climb to higher elevations for the salamanders' declines. "We think global warming is a factor, pushing organisms up to higher elevations where the habitat is wrong for them," he  said in a statement.


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.


According to Wake, populations of other species that depend upon salamanders as food are also shrinking.

Wake did not find evidence of Chytrid fungus, which is responsible for killing off frog and other amphibian species worldwide. But  Karen Lips, a biologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, told National Geographic that the salamanders' disappearance has all the markings of the fungal infection, which infects amphibians' skin and interferes with their ability to absorb water and oxygen. First observed 10 years ago, the fungus has since spread to every continent with amphibian populations, and has been blamed for the deaths of millions of frogs worldwide.

Meanwhile, two endangered salamander species in the U.S. got a boost this week, as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service established 22,970 acres of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), and 4,453 acres for the reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi). Previously believed to be a single species, the flatwoods salamander in 1999 was listed as threatened and protected under the Endangered Species Act The reticulated salamander will retain that status, while the frosted salamander will now be listed as endangered, a status level that will offer it greater protections.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources' Red List of Threatened Species includes 484 species of endangered salamanders. Almost all of them are identified with a population trend of "declining."

Image: Pseudoeurycea goebeli, Sean M. Rovito/UC Berkeley

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe