Providing evidence to improve practice
Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscapeIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F190http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F190Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:26:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Individual Study: 40 years of natterjack toad conservation in EuropeIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4804http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4804Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:17:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A place to call home: amphibian use of created and restored wetlandsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4833http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4833Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:17:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: 2010 OverviewIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4891http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4891Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:40:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A literature review of the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles and the measures used to minimize those effectsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4935http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4935Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:42:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A biodiversity assessment of compensatory mitigation wetlands in eastern South DakotaIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4940http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F4940Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:42:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A pond restoration project and a tree-frog Hyla arborea project in the municipality of Aarhus DenmarkIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5093http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5093Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:01:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A conservation program for Atelopus species at the Cali Zoo, ColombiaIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5092http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5092Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:01:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: ‘State of the nation’ report on New Zealand translocations including a quick overview of past translocationsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5114http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5114Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:01:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A note on the captive maintenance and breeding of the Pyrenean mountain salamander (Euproctus asper asper Dugès)Individual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5150http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5150Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:02:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to water bodies to reduce acidification One before-and-after study in the UK found that adding limestone to ponds resulted in establishment of one of three translocated populations of natterjack toads. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that species-specific habitat management that included adding limestone to ponds increased natterjack toad populations. One before-and-after study in the UK found that adding limestone to ponds temporarily increased breeding by natterjack toads. Three before-and-after studies (including one controlled, replicated study) in the Netherlands and UK found that adding limestone increased larval and/or egg survival of moor frogs and common frogs and resulted in metamorphosis of natterjack toads at two of three sites. Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in the UK found that adding limestone to ponds resulted in high tadpole mortality and pond abandonment by natterjack toads and higher numbers of abnormal common frog eggs.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F748http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F748Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:41:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp One before-and-after study in Tanzania found that installing a sprinkler system to mitigate against a 90% reduction of river flow did not maintain a population of Kihansi spray toads.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F755http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F755Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:05:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add salt to ponds to reduce chytridiomycosis One study in Australia found that following addition of salt to a pond containing the chytrid fungus, a population of green and golden bell frogs remained free of chytridiomycosis for at least six months.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F762http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F762Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:13:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Augment ponds with ground water to reduce acidification We found no evidence for the effects of augmenting ponds with ground water to reduce acidification effects on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F803http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F803Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:00:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Artificially shade ponds to prevent desiccation We found no evidence for the effects of artificially shading ponds to prevent desiccation on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F808http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F808Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:03:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add nutrients to new ponds as larvae food source We found no evidence for the effects of adding nutrients, such as zooplankton, to new ponds on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F812http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F812Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:07:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to ponds We found no evidence for the effects of adding woody debris to ponds on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F814http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F814Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:09:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add specific plants to aquatic habitats We found no evidence for the effects of adding specific plants, such as emergent vegetation, to aquatic habitats on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.      Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F816http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F816Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:10:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding frogs Thirty-three studies investigated the success of breeding frogs in captivity. Twenty-three of 33 studies, three of which were reviews and 30 replicated studies, across the world found that amphibians produced egg in captivity, in four cases by captive-bred females. Seven found mixed results, with some species of frogs or 17–50% of captive populations  reproducing successfully in captivity, but with other species difficult to maintain or raise to adults. One found that frogs did not breed successfully in captivity and another that all breeding frogs died. Seventeen of the studies found that captive-bred frogs were raised successfully to hatching, tadpoles, froglets or adults in captivity. One found that froglet survival was low and another that three species were not successfully raised to adulthood. Four replicated studies (including one small study) in,Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Italy found that 30–88% of eggs hatched or survival to metamorphosis was 75%, as froglets was 17–51% or to adults was 50–90% in captivity. One review and four replicated studies (including two small studies) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that reproductive success of frogs in captivity depended on temperature or a simulated wet and dry season, but not on whether frogs were housed in high or low maintenance facilities. Three replicated studies (including one small study) in Germany, Australia and Canada found that egg or tadpole development in captivity was affected by parental care, density or temperature.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:25:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding harlequin toads (Atelopus species) One review and three of five replicated studies (including one small study) in Colombia, Ecuador, Germany and the USA found that harlequin toads reproduced in captivity. One found that eggs were only produced in captivity by simulating a dry and wet season and one found that successful breeding was difficult. One found that captive-bred harlequin toads were raised successfully to metamorphosis in captivity. Two found that most toads died before or after hatching.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F836http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F836Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:54:34 +0100