Introduction
The Conservation Evidence Journal shares the global experience of those on the front line of conservation practice about the effectiveness of conservation actions. All papers include monitoring of the effects of the intervention and are written by, or in partnership with, those who did the conservation work. We encourage articles from anywhere around the world on all aspects of species and habitat management such as habitat creation, habitat restoration, translocations, reintroductions, invasive species control, changing attitudes and education.
The Conservation Evidence Journal publishes peer-reviewed papers throughout the year collected in an annual Volume. We publish Special Issues and collate Collections on specific topics, such as management of particular groups of species or habitats. To search for papers on a specific topic within the journal select Advanced search, enter your keyword(s) and within the Source box type: "conservation evidence". This will take you to a list of actions that contain Conservation Evidence Journal papers. In order to see the list of individual Conservation Evidence Journal papers on the topic, please click on 'You can also search Individual Studies' at the top of this page.
Copyright is retained by the author(s). All papers published in the Conservation Evidence Journal are open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The Conservation Evidence Journal is a separate publication within the Conservation Evidence project. Conservation Evidence is a free, authoritative information resource designed to support decisions about how to maintain and restore global biodiversity. You can search for summarised evidence from the scientific literature about the effects of actions for species groups and habitats using our online database.
Amphibian Special Issue
Making amphibian conservation more effective
Meredith H.M.R., Van Buren C. & Antwis R.E. (2016), 13, 1-5
Preview
Amphibians face an extinction crisis. Hundreds of species may be lost as conservation scientists and practitioners struggle to identify remedies to poorly understood declines spanning several decades. Due to various life history characteristics and a range of drivers, amphibians continue to be especially hard-hit, more so than any other vertebrate group. In this special issue of Conservation Evidence, studies that report the effectiveness of amphibian conservation interventions are presented to add to the rapidly growing body of literature on this topic. We here summarise the current understanding of global amphibian declines to highlight the importance of applying evidence-based strategies to amphibian conservation.
https://conservationevidencejournal.com/reference/pdf/5558
Relocation of Puerto Rican cave dwelling frogs Eleutherodactylus cooki into natural and artificial habitats
López-Torres A.L., Rodríguez-Gómez C.A. & Salguero-Faría J.A. (2016), 13, 6-6
Preview
We report the results of capturing and relocating 403 Eleutherodactylus cooki frogs. The frequency of recovery of translocated individuals was similar in natural and artificial habitats.
Captive-rearing state endangered crawfish frogs Lithobates areolatus from Indiana, USA
Stiles R.M., Sieggreen M.J., Johnson R.A., Pratt K., Vassallo M., Andrus M., Perry M., Swan J.W. & Lannoo M.J. (2016), 13, 7-11
Preview
Crawfish frogs Lithobates areolatus inhabit the tallgrass prairie of the southeastern Great Plains and Mississippi Delta, and have recently been considered for US federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Here we attempt to determine the feasibility of head-starting crawfish frog tadpoles, and establish captive-rearing protocols. Captive-rearing produced more juveniles from fewer egg masses than a natural wetland in each year from 2013–2015, and survivorship of captive-reared tadpoles exceeded that of wild tadpoles. However, high rates of malformations, partial cannibalism, disease, and predation were seen among frogs in some years, and we therefore refined protocols to reduce these issues.
https://conservationevidencejournal.com/reference/pdf/5560
Effectiveness of artificial amphibian breeding sites against non-native species in a public protected area in Tuscany, Italy
Bruni G., Ricciardi G. & Vannini A. (2016), 13, 12-16
Preview
The spread of non-native invasive species is among the factors thought to be responsible for the recent global declines in amphibian populations. In a Protected Natural Area of Local Interest in Tuscany, Italy, we tested approaches for preserving the local amphibian populations threatened by the presence of the red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii. The construction of artificial breeding ponds, with suitable vertical barriers, was initially effective in preventing the spread of the red swamp crayfish and created a source site for amphibians, in particular newt species. Unfortunately, five years after construction, the breeding sites were colonized by fish and crayfish, possibly due to the actions of members of the public.
https://conservationevidencejournal.com/reference/pdf/5561
Controlling the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis to conserve the Cape platanna Xenopus gilli in South Africa
de Villiers F.A., de Kock M. & Measey G.J. (2016), 13, 17-17
Preview
A five year control programme of the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis resulted in improved population demographics in the Cape platanna Xenopus gilli in comparison to a population without removal.
Does legal site protection lead to improved conservation of ponds with fire-bellied toads Bombina bombina in Denmark?
Fog K. & Wederkinch E. (2016), 13, 18-20
Preview
In Denmark, nature conservation in the middle of the twentieth century mainly involved protecting areas by legal declarations forbidding the destruction or degradation of the protected area. During the period 1946 to 1969, 22 sites with fire-bellied toads Bombina bombina were protected as single ponds, and 40 ponds with Bombina were protected as a part of larger protected landscapes. We evaluate the survival of Bombina populations in these protected ponds compared to 51 control ponds where Bombina was recorded in 1940-1955, but which were not protected. In all cases, survival of Bombina was low, and although protection may have delayed extinction, there is no clear evidence that it prevented extinction. There was a trend for better outcomes in the larger protected landscapes, but this may have been due to other causes, such as more cattle grazing. It is concluded that passive protection (legal protection without active management) is not effective, whereas the type of active approach that has been used increasingly since 1982 is more promising.
https://conservationevidencejournal.com/reference/pdf/5563
Volumes
- Volume 21 | 2024
- Volume 20 | 2023
- Volume 19 | 2022
- Volume 18 | 2021
- Volume 17 | 2020
- Volume 16 | 2019
- Volume 15 | 2018
- Volume 14 | 2017
- Volume 13 | 2016
- Volume 12 | 2015
- Volume 11 | 2014
- Volume 10 | 2013
- Volume 9 | 2012
- Volume 8 | 2011
- Volume 7 | 2010
- Volume 6 | 2009
- Volume 5 | 2008
- Volume 4 | 2007
- Volume 3 | 2006
- Volume 2 | 2005
- Volume 1 | 2004
)_2023.JPG)
