SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Environmental Toxicology and Ecology / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

Amphibians and Reptiles as Bioindicator Organisms: An Ecotoxicological and Ecological Review

Biyoindikatör Organizmalar Olarak Amfibiler ve Sürüngenler: Ekotoksikolojik ve Ekolojik Bir Derleme

Muammer Kurnaz(Gümüşhane Üniversitesi)0000-0002-0498-0208
Pages
1–15
Publication Date
2026-07-03
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By integrating species selection, sampling design, and biomarker application, this review aims to contribute to the advancement of ecotoxicological monitoring and to support evidence-based environmental management and conservation policies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Amphibians and reptiles are increasingly recognized as highly effective bioindicator organisms for assessing environmental pollution and ecosystem health due to their unique physiological and ecological characteristics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition, the role of amphibians as early-warning indicators and reptiles as long-term accumulation monitors is comparatively analyzed, highlighting their complementary value in integrated monitoring frameworks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By integrating species selection, sampling design, and biomarker application, this review aims to contribute to the advancement of ecotoxicological monitoring and to support evidence-based environmental management and conservation policies.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyoindikatör · amfibiler · sürüngenler

Abstract

Amphibians and reptiles are increasingly recognized as highly effective bioindicator organisms for assessing environmental pollution and ecosystem health due to their unique physiological and ecological characteristics. This review provides a comprehensive and integrative evaluation of the biological, ecological, and methodological foundations underlying the use of herpetofauna in biomonitoring studies. Particular emphasis is placed on their dual habitat utilization, pollutant accumulation capacity, and sensitivity to both acute and chronic environmental stressors. The review synthesizes current knowledge on biomarker responses at multiple levels of biological organization, including biochemical, molecular, histopathological, and behavioral endpoints. The effects of major contaminant groups—such as pesticides, heavy metals, endocrine-disrupting compounds, and emerging pollutants like microplastics—are critically examined in relation to exposure pathways and species-specific responses. In addition, the role of amphibians as early-warning indicators and reptiles as long-term accumulation monitors is comparatively analyzed, highlighting their complementary value in integrated monitoring frameworks. Methodological approaches, including multi-biomarker strategies, genetic assays, and emerging omics-based techniques, are evaluated in terms of sensitivity, applicability, and limitations. The review also addresses key challenges in the field, such as the lack of standardization, variability among species and environments, and the need for long-term datasets. Finally, the study proposes a framework for the development of national biomonitoring programs with particular reference to the diverse and ecologically significant herpetofauna of Turkey. By integrating species selection, sampling design, and biomarker application, this review aims to contribute to the advancement of ecotoxicological monitoring and to support evidence-based environmental management and conservation policies.

Özet

Amfibiler ve sürüngenler, kendilerine özgü fizyolojik ve ekolojik özellikleri sayesinde çevresel kirliliğin ve ekosistem sağlığının değerlendirilmesinde son derece etkili biyoindikatör organizmalar olarak giderek daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Bu derleme, herpetofaunanın biyoizleme çalışmalarındaki kullanımına ilişkin biyolojik, ekolojik ve metodolojik temelleri kapsamlı ve bütüncül bir yaklaşımla değerlendirmektedir. Özellikle bu organizmaların çift yaşam ortamına sahip olmaları, kirletici biriktirme kapasiteleri ve hem akut hem de kronik çevresel stres faktörlerine karşı yüksek duyarlılıkları vurgulanmaktadır. Çalışmada, biyobelirteç yanıtları; biyokimyasal, moleküler, histopatolojik ve davranışsal düzeylerde ele alınarak çok katmanlı bir analiz sunulmuştur. Pestisitler, ağır metaller, endokrin bozucu maddeler ve mikroplastikler gibi başlıca kirletici grupların etkileri; maruziyet yolları ve türlere özgü yanıtlar bağlamında kritik olarak incelenmiştir. Ayrıca amfibilerin erken uyarı sistemi olarak, sürüngenlerin ise uzun vadeli kirletici birikim göstergesi olarak oynadığı roller karşılaştırmalı biçimde değerlendirilmiş ve bu iki grubun birlikte kullanımının önemi ortaya konmuştur. Biyobelirteç temelli yöntemler, genetik analizler ve yeni nesil omik yaklaşımlar; duyarlılık, uygulanabilirlik ve sınırlılıkları açısından ele alınmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra, alandaki temel sorunlar olan standardizasyon eksikliği, türler arası değişkenlik ve uzun dönemli veri ihtiyacı da tartışılmıştır. Son olarak, Türkiye’nin zengin herpetofaunası temel alınarak ulusal biyoizleme programlarının geliştirilmesine yönelik bir çerçeve önerilmiştir. Tür seçimi, örnekleme stratejileri ve biyobelirteç uygulamalarının entegrasyonu ile bu çalışma, ekotoksikolojik izleme çalışmalarının geliştirilmesine ve bilim temelli çevre yönetimi ile koruma politikalarına katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kurnaz, M. (2026). Amphibians and Reptiles as Bioindicator Organisms: An Ecotoxicological and Ecological Review. Environmental Toxicology and Ecology, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.59838/etoxec.1914565

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. C. H. Walker, R. M. Sibly, S. P. Hopkin, and D. B. Peakall, Principles of Ecotoxicology, 4th ed. CRC Press, 2012.
  2. A. A. H. Siddig, A. M. Ellison, A. Ochs, C. Villar-Leeman, and M. K. Lau, “How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change?” Ecol. Indic., vol. 60, pp. 223–230, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.036
  3. A. R. Blaustein and J. M. Kiesecker, “Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations,” Ecol. Lett., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 597–608, 2002.
  4. IUCN, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2022-2. [Online]. Available: https://www.iucnredlist.org, 2022.
  5. B. C. Scheele et al., “Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6434, pp. 1459–1463, 2019. doi: 10.1126/science.aau8255
  6. J. W. Gibbons et al., “The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians,” BioScience, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 653–666, 2000.
  7. K. R. Campbell and T. S. Campbell, “Lizard contaminant research: a review of relevant methodological approaches and of the existing database,” Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., vol. 172, pp. 1–79, 2001.
  8. B. A. Markert, A. M. Breure, and H. G. Zechmeister, Eds., Bioindicators and Biomonitors: Principles, Concepts and Applications. Elsevier, 2003.
  9. G. J. Niemi and M. E. McDonald, “Application of ecological indicators,” Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., vol. 35, pp. 89–111, 2004.
  10. I. F. Spellerberg, Monitoring Ecological Change, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  11. R. van der Oost, J. Beyer, and N. P. E. Vermeulen, “Fish bioaccumulation and biomarkers in environmental risk assessment: a review,” Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 57–149, 2003.
  12. M. H. Depledge, “The rational basis for the use of biomarkers as ecotoxicological tools,” in Nondestructive Biomarkers in Vertebrates, M. C. Fossi and C. Leonzio, Eds. Lewis Publishers, 1994, pp. 271–295.
  13. H. A. Adorno, I. D. C. Souza, M. V. Monferrán, D. A. Wunderlin, M. N. Fernandes, and D. A. Monteiro, ” A multi-biomarker approach to assess the sublethal effects of settleable atmospheric particulate matter from an industrial area on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus),” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 538, pp. 159168, 2023.
  14. C. M. Bridges and R. D. Semlitsch, “Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and within species of Ranidae,” Conserv. Biol., vol. 15, no.5, pp. 1490-1499, 2000.
  15. A. Quaranta, V. Bellantuono, G. Cassano, and C. Lippe, “Why amphibians are more sensitive than mammals to xenobiotics,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 11, p. e7699, 2009.
  16. R. A. Relyea, “The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians,” Ecol. Appl., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1118–1124, 2005.
  17. J. R. Rohr and K. A. McCoy, “A qualitative meta-analysis reveals consistent effects of atrazine on freshwater fish and amphibians,” Environ. Health Perspect., vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 20–32, 2010.
  18. D. W. Sparling, G. M. Fellers, and L. L. McConnell, “Pesticides and amphibian population declines in California, USA,” Environ. Toxicol. Chem., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1591–1595, 2001.
  19. I. Bernabò, E. Brunelli, C. Berg, A. Bonacci, and S. Tripepi, “Endosulfan effects in Bufo bufo: toxicological characterization and biomarkers,” Aquat. Toxic., vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 447–456, 2008.
  20. J. R. Rohr, A. A. Elskus, B. S. Shepherd, P. H. Crowley, T. M. McCarthy, J. H. Niedzwiecki, T. Sager, A. Sih, and B. D. Palmer, “Multiple stressors and salamanders: effects of an herbicide, food limitation, and hydroperiod,” Ecol. Appl., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1028–1040, 2008.
  21. T. B. Hayes, A. Collins, M. Lee, M. Mendoza, N. Noriega, A. A. Stuart, and A. Vonk, “Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 5476–5480, 2002.
  22. M. Hecker and H. Hollert, “Endocrine disruptor screening: regulatory perspectives and needs,” Environ. Sci. Eur., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2009.
  23. P. Coyle, J. C. Philcox, L. C. Carey, and A. M. Rofe, “Metallothionein: the multipurpose protein,” Cell. Mol. Life Sci., vol. 59, pp. 627–647, 2002.
  24. P. T. J. Johnson, J. M. Chase, K. L. Dosch, R. B. Gross, J. A. Rohr, and S. R. Carpenter, “Aquatic eutrophication promotes pathogenic infection in amphibians,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 104, no. 40, pp. 15781–15786, 2007.
  25. J. Häkkinen, S. Pasanen, and J. V. K. Kukkonen, “The effects of solar UV-B radiation on embryonic mortality and development in three boreal anurans (Rana temporaria, Rana arvalis and Bufo bufo),” Chemosphere, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 441–446, 2001.
  26. S. S. Borković-Mitić et al., “Biomarkers of oxidative stress and metal accumulation in marsh frog (Pelophylax ridibundus),” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 9649–9659, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-6194-3
  27. E. Seccombe and R. Salguero-Gómez, “An improved habitat suitability index for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus,” Herpetol. J., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 55–67, 2024.
  28. A. Martel et al., “Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans sp. nov. causes lethal chytridiomycosis in amphibians,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 110, no. 38, pp. 15325–15329, 2013. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307356110
  29. J. Pellet, A. Guisan, and N. Perrin, “A concentric analysis of the impact of urbanization on the threatened European tree frog in an agricultural landscape,” Conserv. Biol., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1599–1606, 2004.
  30. T. B. Hayes et al., “Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis),” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 107, no. 10, pp. 4612–4617, 2010. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909519107
  31. J. Mazgajska and T. D. Mazgajski, “Two amphibian species in the urban environment: changes in the occurrence, spawning phenology and adult condition of common and green toads,” Eur. Zool. J., vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 170–179, 2020. doi: 10.1080/24750263.2020.1744743
  32. R. M. Mann, J. C. Sánchez-Hernández, E. A. Serra, and A. M. Soares, “Bioaccumulation of Cd by a European lacertid lizard after chronic exposure to Cd-contaminated food,” Chemosphere, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 1525–1534, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.07.047
  33. V. V. Drewett, J. D. Willson, D. A. Cristol, S. Y. Chin, and W. A. Hopkins, “Inter- and intraspecific variation in mercury bioaccumulation by snakes inhabiting a contaminated river floodplain,” Environ. Toxicol. Chem., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1178–1186, 2013. doi: 10.1002/etc.2155
  34. G. H. Plunkett et al., “Introduced urban lizards (Podarcis muralis) exhibit environmentally plastic activity patterns and precise behavioral thermoregulation,” EcoEvoRxiv (preprint), 2025. doi: 10.32942/X2Z62W
  35. M. M. Storelli and G. O. Marcotrigiano, “Heavy metal residues in tissues of marine turtles,” Mar. Pollut. Bull., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 397–400, 2003.
  36. S. Franzellitti, L. Locatello, M. Puntin, and E. Fabbri, “Heavy metals in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) from the northwestern Adriatic Sea,” Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol., vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 187–194, 2004.
  37. A. Simonyan et al., “DNA damage and micronuclei in parthenogenetic and bisexual Darevskia rock lizards from the areas with different levels of soil pollution,” Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., vol. 154, pp. 13–18, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.033
  38. N. Corduk, N. Hacioglu-Dogru, C. Gul, and M. Tosunoglu, “Monitoring of micronuclei and nuclear abnormalities in Pelophylax ridibundus erythrocytes from the Biga Stream (Canakkale, Turkey),” Fresenius Environ. Bull., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 147–153, 2018.
  39. E. Martínez-López et al., “Blood δ-ALAD, lead and cadmium concentrations in spur-thighed tortoises (Testudo graeca) from Southeastern Spain and Northern Africa,” Ecotoxicology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 670–677, 2010. doi: 10.1007/s10646-009-0441-z
  40. L. Burkart et al., “Determinants of legacy persistent organic pollutant levels in the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis) in the Camargue Wetland, France,” Environ. Toxicol. Chem., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2261–2268, 2021. doi: 10.1002/etc.5108
  41. S. Jerez et al., “Accumulation and tissue distribution of heavy metals and essential elements in loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from Spanish Mediterranean coastline of Murcia,” Chemosphere, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 256–264, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.10.047
  42. O. Cakici and E. Akat, “Histopathological effects of carbaryl on testes of snake-eyed lizard, Ophisops elegans,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 2012. doi: 10.1007/s11356-011-0541-1
  43. S. C. Grott et al., “Influence of temperature on growth, development and thyroid metabolism of American bullfrog tadpoles (Lithobates catesbeianus) exposed to the herbicide tebuthiuron,” Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol., vol. 94, p. 103910, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2022.103910
  44. İ. Baran and M. K. Atatur, Turkish Herpetofauna (Amphibians–Reptiles). Ministry of Environment Publications, Ankara, 1998.
  45. M. Kurnaz, “Species list of amphibians and reptiles from Turkey,” J. Anim. Divers., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 10–32, 2020.
  46. N. Çördük, Ç. Gül, N. Hacıoğlu Doğru, and M. Tosunoğlu, “Evaluation of the effects of environmental pollutants on populations of the European pond turtle Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus, 1758) at Çanakkale, Türkiye,” Fresenius Environ. Bull., 2024. [In press / accepted]
  47. H. Karaoglu, “Effects of environmentally relevant ammonium nitrate levels caused by agricultural activities on four amphibian species in the eastern Black Sea region,” Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 9 (sp), pp. 2604–2617, 2021. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v9isp.2604-2617.4981
  48. N. Hacıoğlu Doğru, Ç. Gül, N. Çördük, and M. Tosunoğlu, “Determination of the effects of environmental pollution on the Balkan terrapin, Mauremys rivulata (Valenciennes, 1833),” Acta Vet. Hung., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 245–253, 2022. doi: 10.1556/004.2022.00024
  49. Z. M. Uğurtan and F. Sayim, “The use of the fire bellied toad, Bombina bombina (Amphibia: Anura), as an ecotoxicological test organism,” Baku State Univ. J. Life Sci. Biol., vol. 1, 2024.
  50. M. K. Şahin, “Nevşehir–Kapadokya bölgesinde kara kaplumbağalarındaki (Testudo graeca, Linnaeus 1758) bazı enzim ve hormon düzeylerinin araştırılması,” M.Sc. thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2014.
  51. D. Sözbilen, E. Başkale, A. Höl, A. Kaska, Ü. Dıvrıklı, L. Elci, and Y. Kaska, “The trace element concentrations in tissues from the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) from different life stages in Türkiye,” North-West. J. Zool., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 158–165, 2025.
  52. I. Simsek, O. Kuzukiran, İ. Filazi, U. G. Boztepe, D. Ozen, E. Kara, and A. Filazi, “Assessment of metal distribution patterns in loggerhead sea turtles: a comparative analysis based on sex and tissue type,” Mar. Pollut. Bull., vol. 219, p. 118339, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118339
  53. C. N. Özgül, D. Kurtul, and Ç. Gül, “Haematological and genotoxicological research on Pelophylax ridibundus and Bufotes variabilis living around the Çan (Çanakkale, Turkey),” Turk. J. Biosci. Collect., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 105–111, 2020.
  54. M. K. Şahin, “Ekolojik risk değerlendirmede ekotoksikogenomik kavramı ve verdiği katkılar,” Türk Doğa ve Fen Derg., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 144–161, 2020.
  55. B. Boran and Ç. Gül, “Haematological and genotoxicological effects of water quality on Pelophylax bedriagae (Camerano, 1882) and Mauremys rivulata (Valenciennes, 1833) in Çanakkale, Turkiye,” Fresenius Environ. Bull., 2024. [In press / accepted]