I've seen this mentioned elswhere here in the forums so I decided to look up the exact paper and read it through. It disturbs me that Reylea uses the same terminology for ALL of the products EXCEPT Roundup, here he waffles between Glyphosate and Roundup. This leads me to believe the article is slanted to show findings to support something other, rather than an empirical study.

He also states that he applied them directly to the water surface. Then near the end of the paper states he used a formulation of roundup not intended for use in aquatic situations. He then goes on to state that he redid the experiment without a substrate (soil which binds the compounds of roundup) and got a near 100% kill! Gee use something not intended for a situation, then take away the substrate that binds up the ingredients, go figure. Here's a link to a review of the paper I read over in the trees forum (courtesy of JAYK)
http://rvm.cas.psu.edu/downloads/Relyea_Summary.pdf

I use roundup for my work as well as rodeo based on the situation. At home, however, my favorite non-selective herbicide is 99 cents a gallon white vinegar.

Read the study (if you have time), then read the review, If you haven't already. Seems like something's fishy to me.

Here is a link that might be useful: Relyea study

Previous research had found that the ingredient lethal to amphibians in Roundup was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup, that surfactant is a chemical called polyehtoxylated tallowamine.

The problem really comes from improper application and/or choice of products for the given area. Roundup is not a labeled product for use over water or in wetland areas because of one of the ingredients in it (not the Glyphosate) is damaging to aquatic life. Rodeo is the Glyphosate product labeled for use over water. Many people misuse herbicides without reading the label.

In a limited way, Roundup could be safely applied in areas known to contain amphibians if it were applied with either a brush or wick applicator. A mist application is typically the real culprit. Once again  READ THE LABEL. Improper use typically yields unintended consequences.

IronBelly

I would also add that studies where Roundup has been used to control plants in various habitats that contain populations of amphibians, such as forestland and riparian areas, have not shown negative impacts on these animals. It is clear that surfactants, such as those in detergents, soaps and Roundup are not appropriate for direct application to water, but it is equally clear that labeled use of Roundup in non-aquatic sites is not a cause for concern regarding amphibians. The primary problem with this study is the very misleading press release and comments from the author that purported that the study results were totally unexpected. Nothing could be further from the truth. The toxicity of surfactants, including Roundup's surfactant, to aquatic organisms is well known and has been well documented for many years. There is no reason to discontinue labeled use of Roundup in restoration work. The link Penn State sums it up very well.

Here is a link that might be useful: Penn State summary

i just have to add one thing: a wetland isn't necessary for an amphibian population to be present, for example, toads. toads will be found in "meadows" where roundup is being used.

Good point. And the studies I have seen have shown that Roundup is not deterimental to their populations in such areas. A few suggestions: Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000) Sullivan DS, Sullivan TP (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup herbicide. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35-120.;

Non-target impacts of the herbicide glyphosate: A compendium of references and abstracts. 5th Edition. Applied Mammal Research Institute, Summerland, BritishColumbia, Canada.;

Birge WJ, Westerman AG, Spromberg JA. (2000) Comparative toxicity and risk assessment of amphibians. Chapter 14A in Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles. Sparling DW, Linder G, Bishop CA (Eds). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL. p.
727-791.

Thanks JAYK! wonderful information.

i have only one other question, and i must commend you for listing references.

are these doing the research affiliated with any companies that would cause bias, or are they neutral scientist/environmentalists? (the middle one "looks" obvious as to who "they" are)

ok, two questions. as far as the above question, how would anyone make this determination?

The majority of the studies looking at effects in situ as I have cited are not typically even funded by the manufacturer. They are usually carried out by university based scientists.

As for laboratory studies needed for the actual governmental registration of pesticides, these are generally funded by the manufacturer but are carried out by third party labs following highly standardized and regulated practices. All are subject to review by the governmental body.

I share your concern that the quality and source of the study must be considered. I have been satisfied that the evidence is clear that this particular herbicide is not presenting a general problem for amphibians. That is certainly not necessarily the case for other herbicides. Characteristics vary greatly between different pesticides.

See the response from Professor Relyea:

http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Roundup.html

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Please note the following use of "environmentally relevant concns." in the following larger quote:

"chronically exposed to environmentally relevant concns. of POEA or glyphosate formulations contg. POEA showed decreased snout-vent length at metamorphosis and increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage, and gonadal abnormalities."
------------------------------

Title: Toxicity of glyphosate-based pesticides to four North American frog species.

Authors: Howe, Christina M.; Berrill, Michael; Pauli, Bruce D.; Helbing, Caren C.; Werry, Kate; Veldhoen, Nik.

Authors affiliation: Department of Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Can.

Published in: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (2004), 23(8), pages 1928-1938.

Abstract: "Glyphosate-based herbicides are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. We compared the acute toxicity of the glyphosate end-use formulation Roundup Original to four North American amphibian species (Rana clamitans, R. pipiens, R. sylvatica, and Bufo americanus) and the toxicity of glyphosate tech., the polyethoxylated tallowamine surfactant (POEA) commonly used in glyphosate-based herbicides, and five newer glyphosate formulations to R. clamitans. For R. clamitans, acute toxicity values in order of decreasing toxicity were POEA > Roundup Original > Roundup Transorb > Glyfos AU; no significant acute toxicity was obsd. with glyphosate tech. material or the glyphosate formulations Roundup Biactive, Touchdown, or Glyfos BIO. Comparisons between the four amphibian species showed that the toxicity of Roundup Original varied with species and developmental stage. Rana pipiens tadpoles chronically exposed to environmentally relevant concns. of POEA or glyphosate formulations contg. POEA showed decreased snout-vent length at metamorphosis and increased time to metamorphosis, tail damage, and gonadal abnormalities. These effects may be caused, in some part, by disruption of hormone signaling, because thyroid hormone receptor b mRNA transcript levels were elevated by exposure to formulations contg. glyphosate and POEA. Taken together, the data suggest that surfactant compn. must be considered in the evaluation of toxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides."

Amphibians by their nature are extremely vulnerable to environmental changes.
Their populations have declined in recent times.
In the last few hundred years we humans have introduced numerous substances into the air, soil, water, atmosphere, ozone layer etc. that are absorbed, eaten, (drunk, drank, drinked), breathed, by ourselves and our critter amigos.
Whether you believe in evolution, intelligent design or whatever, we need to be very careful about introducing substances into our world.This world cannot adapt quickly to the changes we are causing.
We have all heard news stories that first say something is OK and then say it is not. Vioxx for example. Or they find that something causes cancer that they thought was OK.
Nature, our world, is a balance, a web of interrelated factors that evolved over millions of years. It is niave to think that we can manipulte the world without destroying the balance.
It is not just the frogs or salamanders that are affected, they might be one of the first things affected, but know that there are consequences for introducing chemicals into the world that cannot be predicted.
It may be that glyphosate, used properly, is benign.
The bigger question is who decides , and how is it decided, what changes we make, and what we do to protect the environment.

The following is a very recent (September 7, 2005) summary published in an American Chemical Society Publication:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/sep/science/rr_inerts.html

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

I use the "glove of death" method, but then again, my prairie recreation is only about 500 sq. feet.

Hi all, Im kinda new to this site and from what Im reading here Im not half as educated as most of you, but I think every ones opinion should count =) I think that it might be a little late for people to start to worry about what is in the insecticides we use, the water we drink, the food that we eat,the air we breath, whats killing our amphibians and all other critters that used to do great in this world, I really think that the time has past to correct it, maybe the earth could recover, maybe not, maybe the earth will turn on the very thing that is infesting it like a parasite/disease, and we all know who/what that is! I hope that this is not the case, but one cant help but wonder, theres the old saying,"a person can only take so much" well, the earth can only take so much, can you imagine the damage that will be done when she starts "pushing back?" just my thoughts, Thanks

could hurricanes and the alleged link to global warming be an example of mother nature pushing back?
It is not too late to attempt to remedy the wrongs we have inflicted on our planet. At least we are obligated to try.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

I dont know if it is not too late to ATTEMPT to remedy the wrongs we have inflicted on our planet, we still may have a chance, and we are indeed obligated to try, I just wish the entire population of this world would realize this and act on it as a whole, I think you and I both know that it will not work any other way, I think that is one of the reasons why we try to duplicate nature in our own back yards, because deep inside we might be afraid of loosing our "natural garden" people who really love nature are getting harder and harder to find, when I was a kid every one I knew was about nature and animals, you ask a kid these days if they want to learn about this and all they want to know about is the next video game and when it will be released, or how fast thier comp is compared to whoevers, or how much better they dress in school than the rest of the kids, its a shame, its not all of them, but it is a good percentage of them, any ways, Im getting of the Garden Web topic, which is gardening, sorry about that.