Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest Twelve studies investigated the effectiveness of retaining buffer strips during timber harvest for amphibians. Six replicated and/or controlled studies in Canada and the USA compared amphibian numbers following clearcutting with or without riparian buffer strips. Five found mixed effects on abundance depending on species and buffer width. One found that amphibian abundance was significantly higher with buffers. Eleven studies, including 10 replicated and/or controlled studies in Canada and the USA and one meta-analysis, compared amphibian numbers in forest with riparian buffers retained during harvest to unharvested forest. Six found mixed effects depending on species or volume of existing downed wood. Four found that abundance and species composition were similar to unharvested forest. Two found that numbers of species and abundance were lower than in unharvested forest. Two of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled, before-and-after study) in Canada and the USA found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance were greater in wider riparian buffer strips. Two found that there was no difference in abundance in buffers of different widths. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F747https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F747Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:42:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove tree canopy to reduce pond shading One before-and-after study in Denmark found that translocated garlic toads established breeding populations following pond restoration that included canopy removal. One before-and-after study in the USA found that canopy removal did not increase hatching success of spotted salamanders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F758https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F758Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:36:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove the chytrid fungus from ponds One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that pond drying and fungicidal treatment of resident midwife toads reduced levels of infection but did not eradicate chytridiomycosis. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F766Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:11:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize equipment when moving between amphibian sites We found no evidence for the effects of sterilizing equipment when moving between amphibian sites on the spread of disease between amphibian populations or individuals. Two randomized, replicated, controlled study in Switzerland and Sweden found that Virkon S disinfectant did not affect survival, mass or behaviour of common frog or common toad tadpoles or moor frog embryos or hatchlings. One of the studies found that bleach significantly reduced survival of common frog and common toad tadpoles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F768https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F768Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:21:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict herbicide, fungicide and pesticide use on and around ponds on golf courses We found no evidence for the effects of restricting herbicide, fungicide or pesticide use on or around ponds on golf courses 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%2F787https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F787Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:28:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native crayfish We found no evidence for the effects of removing or controlling non-native crayfish 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%2F797https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F797Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:42:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive cane toads We found no evidence for the effects of removing or controlling invasive cane toads 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%2F798https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F798Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:43:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize equipment to prevent ranavirus We found no evidence for the effects of sterilizing equipment to prevent ranavirus on the spread of disease between amphibian individuals or 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%2F801https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F801Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:46:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove specific aquatic plantsTwo studies investigating the effects of removing specific aquatic plants are discussed in ‘Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species – Control invasive plants’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F815Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:10:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs One before-and-after study in the USA found that the abundance of squirrel tree frogs and green tree frogs increased after removal of invasive Cuban tree frogs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F822https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F822Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:55:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive bullfrogs One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing American bullfrogs significantly increased a population of California red-legged frogs. One before-and-after study in the USA and Mexico found that eradicating bullfrogs from the area increased the range of leopard frogs. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that once bullfrogs had been removed, California red-legged frogs were found out in the open twice as frequently. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F825https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F825Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:19:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control fish by drying out ponds One before-and-after study in the USA found that draining ponds to eliminate fish increased numbers of amphibian species. One replicated, before-and-after study in Estonia found that pond restoration, which sometimes included drying to eliminate fish, and pond creation increased numbers of species and breeding populations of common spadefoot toads and great crested newts compared to no management. Three studies (including one review) in the UK and USA found that pond drying to eliminate fish, along with other management activities in some cases, increased breeding success of frog or newt species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F826https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F826Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:56:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control fish by catching Four studies (including two replicated, controlled studies) in the USA found that removing fish by catching them significantly increased abundance of salamanders or frogs or increased recruitment, survival and population growth rate of cascades frog. One before-and-after study in the UK found that fish control had no significant effect on great crested newt populations and fish remained or returned within a few years. One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that fish control did not increase green toad breeding success and fish were soon reintroduced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F827https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F827Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:51:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control fish using rotenone Three studies (including one replicated study) in Sweden, the UK and USA found that eliminating fish using rotenone increased numbers of amphibian species, abundance and recruitment or newt populations. One review in Australia, the UK and USA found that fish control, which included using rotenone, increased breeding success for four amphibian species. Two replicated studies in Pakistan and the UK found when rotenone was applied, many frogs died and a small number of newts showed symptoms of negative effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F828Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:25:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control viperine snakes One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that numbers of Mallorcan midwife toad larvae increased after intensive, but not less intensive, removal of viperine snakes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F830https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F830Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:01:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control mammals One controlled study in New Zealand found that controlling rats had no significant effect on numbers of Hochstetter’s frog. One controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of Maud Island frogs was significantly higher in a predator-proof enclosure than in the wild. One study in New Zealand found that at 58% of translocated Hamilton's frogs survived the first year within a predator-proof enclosure. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:39:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat connectivity One before-and-after study in Italy found that restoring connectivity between two wetlands by raising a road on a viaduct, significantly decreased deaths of migrating amphibians. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F840Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:48:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant vegetation Three studies (including two replicated studies) in Australia, Canada and Spain found that amphibian abundance or community composition was similar to natural sites following tree planting, or became more similar with time since grassland reseeding. One before-and-after study in Australia found that numbers of frog species increased following restoration that included planting shrubs and trees. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that following logging, amphibian abundance was lower or similar in forests that were planted and had herbicide treatment compared to those left to regenerate naturally, depending on species and forest age. Four studies (including one replicated study) in Australia, Spain and the USA found that amphibians colonized replanted forest, reseeded grassland and seeded and transplanted upland habitat. Three of the studies investigated restoration following mining. One site comparison study in the USA found that wetlands within reseeded grasslands were used more frequently than those within farmland, but less than those in natural grasslands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F849https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F849Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:50:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat One before-and-after study in Australia found that grassland restoration that included leaving unmown buffers around ponds increased numbers of frog species. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that retaining buffers along ridge tops within harvested forest increased Red Hills salamander abundance, body condition and genetic diversity. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that retaining unmown buffers around ponds had mixed effects on tadpole survival and mass depending on species and site. One replicated study in the USA found that 30 m buffer zones around wetlands were not sufficient to protect marbled salamanders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F850https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F850Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:26:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain connectivity between habitat patches One before-and-after study in Australia found that retaining native vegetation corridors maintained populations of eight of 13 frog species over 20 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F853https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F853Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:45:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred Mallorcan midwife toads Three studies (including one replicated study and one review) in Mallorca found that captive-bred midwife toads released as tadpoles, toadlets or adults established breeding populations at 38%, 80% or 100% of sites. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that predator defences were maintained, but genetic diversity reduced in a captive-bred reintroduced population. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F873https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F873Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:43:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred salamanders (including newts) One before-and-after study in Germany found that captive-bred great crested newts and smooth newts released as larvae, juveniles and adults established stable breeding populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F874https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F874Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:48:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred toads Two of three studies (including two replicated studies) in Denmark, Sweden and the USA found that captive-bred toads released as tadpoles, juveniles or metamorphs established populations, in one case at 70% of sites. One of the studies found that populations were not established from captive-bred and head-started toads. Two studies in Puerto Rico found that survival of released captive-bred Puerto Rican crested toads was low and that 25% were predated within two days of release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F875https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F875Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:51:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore ponds Fifteen studies investigated the effectiveness of pond restoration for amphibians. One replicated, before-and-after study in Denmark found that pond restoration had mixed effects on European tree frog population numbers depending on site. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that pond restoration did not increase great crested newt populations. Six replicated, before-and-after studies (including one controlled and one site comparison study) in Denmark, Estonia, Italy and the UK found that pond restoration and creation increased numbers of amphibian species, maintained or increased populations, or increased pond occupancy and ponds with breeding success. One found that numbers of species did not increase. Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Estonia found that pond restoration, along with terrestrial habitat management, maintained or increased populations of natterjack toads. One systematic review in the UK found that there was no conclusive evidence that mitigation, which often included pond restoration, resulted in self-sustaining great crested newt populations. One small, replicated study in the USA found that pond restoration had mixed effects on spotted salamander hatching success depending on restoration method. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that restoration increased the number of ponds used by breeding natterjack toads. One replicated study in Sweden found that following restoration green toads only reproduced in one of 10 ponds. Three before-and-after studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Denmark and Italy found that restored and created ponds were colonized by 1–7 species, with 6–65% of ponds colonized and 35% used for breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F878https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F878Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:17:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore wetland Seventeen studies investigated the effectiveness of wetland restoration for amphibians. Ten site comparison studies (including eight replicated studies) in Canada and the USA compared amphibian numbers in restored and natural wetlands. Eight found that amphibian abundance, numbers of species and species composition were similar. Two found that the number of species or abundance was lower and species composition different in restored wetlands. One found that restored wetlands were used more or less depending on the habitat surrounding natural wetlands. One global review found that in 89% of cases, restored and created wetlands had similar or higher amphibian abundance or numbers of species to natural wetlands. Seven of nine studies (including six site comparison and/or replicated studies) in Canada, Taiwan and the USA found that wetland restoration increased numbers of amphibian species, with breeding populations establishing in some cases. Three found that numbers of species or abundance did not increase with restoration. Two found mixed effects, with restoration maintaining or increasing abundance of individual species. Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies) in the USA found that numbers of species in restored wetlands were affected by wetland size, proximity to source ponds and seasonality, but not wetland age. Three studies (including two replicated, site comparison studies) in Taiwan and the USA found that restored wetlands were colonized by three to eight amphibian species. One before-and-after study in the USA found that three target species did not recolonize restored wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F879https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F879Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:34:57 +0100