Comparison of the Hazards Posed to Amphibians by the Glyphosate Spray Control Program Versus the Chemical and Physical Activities of Coca Production in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the cumulative multifactorial physical and chemical impacts resulting from coca production on amphibian populations in comparison with the potential impacts produced by the herbicide glyphosate (Glyphos), which, mixed with the surfactant Cosmo-Flux, is used in the spray control program for illicit crops in Colombia. Using similar worst-case assumptions for exposure, several other pesticides used for coca production, including mancozeb, lambda cyhalothrin, endosulfan, diazinon, malathion, and chlorpyrifos, were up to 10- to 100-fold more toxic to frogs than the Glyphos-Cosmo-Flux mixture. Comparing hazard quotients based on application rates, several of these compounds demonstrated hazards 3-383 times that of formulated glyphosate. Secondary effects, particularly of insecticides, are also a concern, as these agents selectively target the primary food source of amphibians, which may indirectly impact growth and development. Although the potential chemical impacts by other pesticides are considerable, physical activities associated with coca production, particularly deforestation of primary forests for new coca plots, portend the greatest hazard to amphibian populations. The entire production cycle of cocaine has been linked to ecosystem degradation. The clearing of pristine forests for coca propagation in Colombia is well documented, and some of these regions coincide with those that contain exceptional amphibian biodiversity. This is particularly problematic as coca production encroaches more deeply into more remote areas of tropical rain forest. Transportation of disease, including the chitrid fungus, to these remote regions via human intrusion may also adversely affect amphibian populations. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of coca production, through habitat destruction, application of agrochemicals, and potential transmission of disease, are judged to pose greater risks to amphibian populations in coca-growing regions than the glyphosate spray control program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".