Our Birth Control Undermines Amphibians

Human oral contraceptives that find their way back into the environment might be having an effect on frog mating. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The most common types of ingested birth control contain estrogen. But the hormone doesn’t just prevent human babies. It may be lowering numbers of frog babies, too. Because estrogens can travel unaltered through a woman’s system, and back into the environment—where they interfere with the courtship of frogs.

Researchers bathed male frogs in tanks containing various concentrations of estrogen—comparable to levels previously measured in nature. And they found that males exposed to estrogen made significantly fewer ‘advertisement’ calls: mating calls that say “hey ladies, I’m over here.” Instead, the frogs made more so-called ‘rasping’ calls: a sign the boys weren’t as turned on as they used to be.

As it turns out, neither were the ladies. Because when researchers played back estrogen-influenced calls to females, the lady frogs weren’t as hot to hop, compared to when they heard the crooning of control frogs. Those findings appear in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [Frauke Hoffmann & Werner Kloas, "Estrogens Can Disrupt Amphibian Mating Behavior"]


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 authors say less seductive mating calls could mean fewer tadpoles. Which means our sex lives could be partly to blame for making global populations of amphibians croak.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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