Environmental toxicology without chemistry and publications without discourse: Linked impediments to better science

Extract

To the Editor:

The poor integration of ecology and environmental toxicology is a common refrain at meetings of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Ecologists may complain of the overly reductionist views of toxicologists and the artificiality of standardized methodologies, and toxicologists may shy away from the ambiguity in ecological studies and models [1], [2]. Both camps, however, need to remember another important component of the ecotoxicology web: the chemical context in which organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems are exposed to contaminants.

A long interest in the nexus of metals ecotoxicology and the study of natural environments drew our attention to a series of field and laboratory studies with the Alaska wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus, formerly Rana sylvatica) and copper (Cu). Reeves et al. [3] reported that the incidence of frog malformations was correlated with hydrocarbons, metals, the abundance of dragonfly predators, and proximity to roads, suggesting either direct effects of the contaminants or contaminant influences on predator–prey interactions. That field and in situ experimental study was followed by 2 laboratory studies with Cu [4], [5]. Demonstrating these correlations from a region of Alaska that is popularly considered to be relatively pristine was an important contribution. Reeves et al. [3] commendably included comprehensive physicochemical covariates to the biological data in their study and made the raw field data available through the Dryad Data Repository [6]. However, we have concerns about the methods and interpretations of the laboratory experiments with Cu that followed the field study.