Toxicity of Formulated Glyphosate (Glyphos) and Cosmo-Flux to Larval Colombian Frogs 1. Laboratory Acute Toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spraying of coca (Erythroxylum coca) with glyphosate in Colombia has raised concerns about possible impacts on amphibians. There are few toxicity data for species other than those from temperate regions, and these have not been generated with the combination of formulated glyphosate (Glyphos) and the adjuvant, Cosmo-Flux (coca mix) as used in coca control in Colombia. In order to characterize toxicity of the spray mixture to frogs from Colombia, Gosner stage-25 tadpoles of Scinax ruber, Dendropophus microcephalus, Hypsiboas crepitans, Rhinella granulosa, Rhinella marina, Rhinella typhonius, Centrolene prosoblepon, and Engystomops pustulosus were exposed to the coca mix at concentrations of glyphosate ranging from 1 to 4.2 mg a.e./L diluted in dechlorinated tap water in glass containers. Cosmo-Flux was added to Glyphos in the proportion of 2.3% v/v, as used in aerial application for coca control. Exposures were for 96 h at 23 +/- 1.5 degrees C with 12:12-h light/dark cycle. Test solutions were renewed every 24 h. Concentrations, measured within the first hour and at 24 and 96 h using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Abraxis, LLC), ranged from 70 to 130% of nominal values. LC50 values ranged from 1200 to 2780 microg glyphosate acid equivalents (a.e.)/L for the 8 species tested. Data suggest that sensitivity to Roundup-type formulations of glyphosate in these species is similar to that observed in other tropical and temperate species. In addition, sensitivity of larval amphibians to Roundup-type formulations spans a relatively narrow range. Finally, toxicity of the mixture as used to spray coca was likely driven by the surfactant in the glyphosate formulation, as the addition of Cosmo-Flux did not enhance toxicity above those reported for Vision = Roundup.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".