Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches One controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that managing ditches increased common toad numbers. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance was significantly higher in ditches managed under agri-environment schemes compared to those managed conventionally. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F749https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F749Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:10:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education programmes about amphibians One study in Taiwan found that education programmes about wetlands and amphibians, along with other interventions, doubled a population of Taipei frogs. Three studies (including one replicated study) in Germany, Mexico, Zimbabwe and the USA found that education programmes increased the amphibian knowledge of students, boatmen and their tourists. Two studies (including one replicated study) in Germany and Slovenia found that students who were taught using live amphibians and had previous direct experience, or who participated in outdoor amphibian conservation work, gained greater knowledge, had improved attitudes towards species and retained knowledge better than those than those taught indoors with pictures. Four studies in Mexico, Taiwan, Zimbabwe and the USA found that courses on amphibians and the environment were attended by 119–6,000 participants and amphibian camps by 700 school children. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F776https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F776Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:04:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regime One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that grazed plots did not have higher abundance of natterjack toads than ungrazed plots and had lower abundance of common toads. Five studies (including four replicated studies) in Denmark, Estonia and the UK found that habitat management that included reintroduction of grazing increased green toad populations, maintained or increased natterjack toad populations and maintained common toad populations. One before-and-after study in the USA found that the decline in amphibian species was similar under traditional season-long or intensive-early cattle stocking. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F780https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F780Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:11:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that numbers of amphibian species, but not abundance, were significantly higher in plots with mechanical understory reduction compared to those without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F781https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F781Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:38:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gully pots and kerbs One before-and-after study in the UK found that moving gully pots 10 cm away from the kerb decreased the number of great crested newts that fell in by 80%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F782https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F782Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:45:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites We found no evidence for the effects of protecting brownfield sites 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F786https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F786Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:26:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage cutting regimeOne study investigating the effects of changing mowing regimes is discussed in ‘Habitat restoration and creation – Change mowing regime’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F788https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F788Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:31:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce tillage We found no evidence for the effects of reduced tillage 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F789https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F789Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:32:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedges We found no evidence for the effects of planting hedges 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F791Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:34:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage silviculture practices in plantations Studies investigating the effects of silviculture practices are discussed in ‘Threat: Biological resource use – Logging & wood harvesting’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F792https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F792Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:35:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent heavy usage or exclude wildfowl from aquatic habitat We found no evidence for the effects of preventing heavy usage or excluding wildfowl from aquatic habitat 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F799Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:43:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses We found no evidence for the effects of preventing pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F802Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter habitat We found no evidence for the effects of providing shelter habitat 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F807https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F807Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:03:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no evidence for the effects of protecting habitat along elevational gradients 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F810https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F810Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:05:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures Three studies (including one replicated study) in Denmark, Sweden and Taiwan found that payments to farmers created amphibian breeding habitat or increased frog or toad populations. However, a second study in Taiwan found that payments did not maintain green tree frog habitat. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that ditches managed under agri-environment schemes had higher numbers of amphibian species and higher abundance than those managed conventionally. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F818Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:47:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant riparian buffer strips One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting buffer strips along streams did not increase amphibian abundance, numbers of species, or the ratio of adults to tadpoles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F819https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F819Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:57:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitats for amphibians One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that populations of natterjack toads were better protected at sites with a statutory level of habitat protection than those outside protected areas. One before-and-after study in the UK found that a common frog population increased but common toads decreased following the protection of a pond during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F820https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F820Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:25:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce competition from native amphibians One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that natterjack toad populations did not increase following common toad control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F821https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F821Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:51:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce impact of amphibian trade One review found that reducing trade in two frog species through legislation allowed populations to recover from over-exploitation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F824https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F824Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:17:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information Two studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in Estonia and the UK found that raising public awareness, along with other interventions, increased numbers of natterjack toads and created 1,023 ponds for amphibians. One before-and-after study in Mexico found that raising awareness in tourists, increased their knowledge of axolotls. One study in Taiwan found that holding press conferences to publicize frog conservation had no effect on a green tree frog project. Two studies in Panama and the UK found that awareness campaigns reached over 50,000 members of the public each year or trained 1,016 people at 57 events over four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F831Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use One study in Taiwan found that halting pesticide use along with habitat management increased a population of Taipei frogs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F832https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F832Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:16:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regulate water levels Two studies (including one replicated, site comparison study) in the UK found that habitat management that included maintaining pond water levels increased natterjack toad populations or maintained newt populations. One replicated, controlled study in Brazil found that keeping rice fields flooded after harvest changed amphibian species composition, but not numbers of species or abundance. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that draining ponds, particularly in the summer, significantly increased abundance and numbers of amphibian species. One before-and-after study in the USA found that maintaining pond water levels enabled successful breeding by dusky gopher frogs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F833https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F833Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:19:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred frogs Four of five studies (including one replicated study and one review) in Europe, Hong Kong and the USA found that captive-bred frogs released as tadpoles, juveniles or adults established populations or stable breeding populations at 88-100% of sites, and in some cases colonized new sites. One study found that stable breeding populations were not established. One before-and-after study in Spain found that released captive-bred, captive-reared and translocated frogs established breeding populations at 79% of sites. Three replicated studies in Australia and the USA found that a high proportion of captive-bred frogs released as eggs survived to metamorphosis, some released as tadpoles survived at least the first few months or few released as froglets survived. Three studies (including two replicated studies) in Australia, Italy and the UK and a review in the USA found that captive-bred frogs reproduced at all or 31–33% of release sites, or that there was very limited breeding by released frogs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F870https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F870Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:52:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred amphibians One review found that 41% of release programmes of captive-bred or head-started amphibians showed evidence of breeding in the wild for multiple generations, 29% showed some evidence of breeding and 12% evidence of survival following release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F871https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F871Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:54:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred green and golden bell frogs One review and two before-and-after studies in Australia found that captive-bred green and golden bell frogs released mainly as tadpoles did not established breeding populations, or only established stable breeding populations following one of four release programmes. One study in Australia found that a small proportion of captive-bred green and golden bell frog released as tadpoles survived at least 13 months after release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F872https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F872Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:03:45 +0100