, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 351–357 | Cite as

The Archipelago of Fernando de Noronha: An Intriguing Malformed Toad Hotspot in South America

Short Communication


Malformed anurans raise concern among scientists, because deformities may relate to the recent global crisis among amphibian populations, although declining populations also may be associated with other causes (e.g., diseases, over-exploitation, and land use/land cover change). We examined a sample of toads (Rhinella jimi, Bufonidae) from an introduced population in the Archipelago of Fernando de Noronha, Brazil where malformations of anurans were thought to be high. Our sample of 159 specimens from the site revealed that 44.6% of all specimens had one or more malformations. Incidence of malformed toads on the mainland sites was substantially lower: 10.5% at Itamaracá, and 3.7% at Propriá. We describe the malformations observed, including six undescribed types of malformation of anurans, and we pose possible hypotheses to explain this high incidence of malformed toads. In addition to existing hypotheses, we suggest for the first time the hypothesis that lack of predation pressures contributes to numbers of malformed toads. We indicate the need of specific studies to understand the causes of malformations in the R. jimi population of Fernando de Noronha, which is thought to be extreme foci of malformed amphibians in the world. Our results may improve local conservation action plans as this is an alien population that may be affecting endemic fauna, and may affect populations in other parts of the world, because toad species of the genus Rhinella are recognized as exceptional colonizers. More importantly, unknown variables in these toads’ environment are evidently affecting toads during development, which should be a concern for all species that inhabit the area, perhaps even humans.


environmental conservation Fernando de Noronha malformed toads Rhinella jimi 



FAPESP provided grants (2008/50325-5) and scholarships (2008/52847-9) to LFT. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) provided the collecting permits (proc. no. 17242-1 and 12073-2). The authors thank J. R. Longcore and J. E. Longcore for reviewing and J. Tolledo for commenting on earlier versions of the manuscript.


  1. Ankley GT, Tietge JE, DeFoe DL, Hjensen KM, Holcombe GW, Durhan EJ, Diamond A (1998) Effects of ultraviolet light and methoprene on survival and development of Rana pipiens. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:2530-2542Google Scholar
  2. Ankley GT, Tietge JE, Holcombe GW, DeFoe DL, Diamond SA, Jensen KM, Degitz SL (2000) Effects of laboratory ultraviolet radiation and natural sunlight on survival and development of Rana pipiens. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1092-1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaustein AR, Johnson PT (2003) The complexity of deformed amphibians. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2:87-94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burkhart JG, Helgen JC, Fort DJ, Gallagher K, Bowers D, Propst TL, Gernes M, Magner J, Shelby MD, Lucier G (1998) Induction of mortality and malformation in Xenopus laevis embryos by water sources associated with field frog deformities. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(12):841-848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton EC, Miller DL, Styer EL, Gray MJ (2008) Amphibian ocular malformation associated with frog virus 3. The Veterinary Journal 177:442–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen MM Jr (2001) Frog decline, frog malformations, and a comparison of frog and human health. American Journal of Medical Genetics 104:101-109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gollmann G, Hödl W, Ohler A (1984) A tadpole from a Bombina hybrid population: a hopeless monster. Amphibia-Reptilia 5:411-415Google Scholar
  8. Haddad CFB, Cardoso AJ, Castanho LM (1990) Hibridação natural entre Bufo ictericus e Bufo crucifer (Amphibia: Anura). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 50(3):739-744Google Scholar
  9. Johnson PTJ, Lunde KB, Ritchie EG, Reaser JK, Launer AE (2001) Morphological abnormality patterns in a California amphibian community. Herpetologica 57:336–352Google Scholar
  10. Johnson PTJ, Lunde KB, Thurman EM, Ritchie EG, Wray SN, Sutherland DR, Kapfer JM, Frest TJ, Bowerman J, Blaustein AR (2002) Paraiste (Ribeiroia ondatrae) infection linked to amphibian malformations in the western United States. Ecological Monographs 72(2):151-168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiesecker JM (2002) Synergism between trematode infection and pesticide exposure: a link to amphibian limb deformities in nature? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:9900–9904Google Scholar
  12. Lannoo M (2008) The collapse of aquatic ecosystems: malformed frogs. University of California Press, 270 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Leblois R, Rousset F, Tikel D, Moritz C, Estoup A (2000) Absence of evidence for isolation by distance in an expanding cane toad (Bufo marinus) population: an individual-based analysis of microsatellite genotypes. Molecular Ecology 9:1905-1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meteyer CU (2000) Field guide to malformations of frogs and toads with radiographic interpretations. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2000-0005Google Scholar
  15. Meteyer CU, Loeffler IK, Fallon JF, Converse KA, Green E, Helgen JC, Kersten S, Levey R, Eaton-Poole L, Burkhart JG (2000) Hind limb malformations in free-living northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) from Maine, Minnesota, and Vermont suggest multiple etiologies. Teratology 62:151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oren DC (1984) Resultados de uma nova expedição zoológica a Fernando de Noronha. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Zoologia 1(1):19-44Google Scholar
  17. Ouellet M, Bonin J, Rodrigue J, DesGranges JL, Lair S (1997) Hind limb deformities (ectromelia, ectrodactyly) in free-living anurans from agricultural habitats. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33:95-104Google Scholar
  18. Roy D (2002) Amphibians as environmental sentinels. Journal of Bioscience 27(3):187-188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sabath MD, Boughton WC, Easteal S (1981) Expansion of the range of the introduced toad Bufo marinus in Australia from 1935 to 1974. Copeia 1981:676–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schoff PK, Johnson CM, Schotthoefer AM, Murphy JE, Lieske C, Cole RA, Johnson LB, Beasley VR (2003) Prevalence of skeletal and eye malformations in frogs from north-central United States: estimations based on collections from randomly selected sites. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39(3):510-521Google Scholar
  21. Williams RN, Bos DH, Gopurenko D, DeWoody JA (2008) Amphibian malformations and inbreeding. Biology Letters 4(5):549-552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Ecology and Health 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Museu de Zoologia “Prof. Adão José Cardoso,” Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Pós Graduação em Ecologia e ConservaçãoUniversidade Federal do Paraná, Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Centro Politécnico, Jardim das AméricasCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de BiociênciasUnesp, Rio ClaroSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations