Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear vegetation Six studies (including four replicated studies) in Australia, Estonia and the UK found that vegetation clearance, along with other habitat management and in some cases release of animals, increased numbers of frog species, or increased, stabilized or maintained populations of natterjack toads. One before-and-after study in the UK found that vegetation clearance, along with other habitat management, maintained a population of great crested newts for the first six years, but not in the longer term. One before-and-after study in England found that vegetation clearance, resulted in increased occupancy by natterjack toads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F761https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F761Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:06:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuges Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Indonesia found that adding coarse woody debris to forest floors had no effect on the number of amphibian species or overall abundance, but had mixed effects on abundance of individual species. One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included reintroducing coarse woody debris to the forest floor increased frog species. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that creating refugia for great crested newts, along with other interventions, maintained four populations. Two studies (including one replicated study) in New Zealand and the USA found that artificial refugia were used by translocated Hamilton's frogs and hellbenders, although few were used for breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F772https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F772Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:40:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create habitat connectivity We found no evidence for the effects of creating habitat connectivity 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F811https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F811Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:06:41 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F840https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F849https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F849Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:50:25 +0100