Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain ephemeral ponds Studies investigating the effects of regulating water levels or deepening ponds are discussed in ‘Threat: Natural system modifications – Regulate water levels’ and ‘Habitat restoration and creation – Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F805https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F805Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:02:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deepen ponds to prevent desiccationStudies investigating the effects of deepening ponds are discussed in ‘Habitat restoration and creation – Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F806https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F806Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:02:40 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F807https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F807Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:03:13 +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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F808https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F808Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:03:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create microclimate and microhabitat refuges Studies investigating the effects of creating refuges are discussed in ‘Habitat restoration and creation’ and ‘Biological resource use – Leave coarse woody debris in forests’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F809https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F809Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:04:30 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F810https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F810Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:05:16 +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: 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F812https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F812Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:07:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuge areas in aquatic habitats We found no evidence for the effects of creating refuge areas in 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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F813https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F813Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:08:47 +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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F814https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F814Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:09:29 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F815https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F815Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:10:05 +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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F816https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F816Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:10:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds Two before-and-after studies in France and Denmark found that pond deepening and enlarging or re-profiling resulted in the establishment of a breeding population of great crested newts or translocated garlic toads. Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the UK and Denmark found that pond deepening and enlarging or dredging increased a population of common frogs or numbers of calling male tree frogs. Four before-and-after studies in Denmark and the UK found that pond deepening, along with other interventions, maintained newt populations and increased populations of European fire-bellied toads or natterjack toads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F817https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F817Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:03:23 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F818https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F819https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F820https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F821https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F821Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:51:47 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F822https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F822Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:55:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plants One before-and-after study in the UK found that aquatic and terrestrial habitat management that included controlling swamp stonecrop, along with release of captive-reared toadlets, tripled a population of natterjack toads. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that Oregon spotted frogs laid eggs in areas where invasive reed canarygrass had been mown more frequently than where it was not mown. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F823https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F823Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:04:26 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F824https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F824Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:17:43 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F825https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F826https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F827https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F828https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F828Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:25:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude fish with barriers One controlled study in Mexico found that excluding fish using a barrier increased weight gain of axolotls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F829https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F829Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:59:09 +0100