Study

Reptile and amphibian response to oak regeneration treatments in productive southern Appalachian hardwood forest

  • Published source details Greenberg C.H., Moorman C.E., Raybuck A.L., Sundol C., Keyser T.L., Bush J., Simon D.M. & Warburton G.S. (2016) Reptile and amphibian response to oak regeneration treatments in productive southern Appalachian hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 377, 139-149.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use shelterwood harvesting

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Manage vegetation using herbicides

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Use shelterwood harvesting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2014 in an upland mixed oak forest in the Appalachians, USA (Greenberg et al. 2016) found that shelterwood harvesting increased lizard but not overall reptile and snake species richness and abundance compared to no management. Overall lizard species richness and capture rates increased after shelterwood harvesting (species richness: 0.8–1.5 species/100 fence nights, abundance: 0.5–1.3 individuals/100 fence nights) compared to no management (0, 0–0.1). Overall reptile and snake species richness and abundance were similar after shelterwood harvesting (overall reptile abundance: 0.7–1.7 captures/100 fence nights), compared to no management (overall reptile abundance: 0.2–0.7 captures/100 fence nights; snake abundance and all reptile and snake species richness data presented as model outputs). See paper for changes in individual species abundances. Shelterwood harvesting was carried out in 2009–2010 in 4–5 replicate plots of 225 x 225 m.  Trees were felled with chainsaws and grapple cutters and dragged to log landings. Monitoring took place using drift fences, pitfall and funnel traps in May-August one year pre-treatment (2008) and five years post treatment (sampled in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014). Plots of the same size and number without any management applied were monitored at the same time.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Manage vegetation using herbicides

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2014 in an upland mixed oak forest in the Appalachians, USA (Greenberg et al. 2016) found that mid-storey vegetation removal using herbicides did not increase the abundance or species richness of total reptiles, snakes or lizards when compared to no management. Abundance and richness of total reptiles was similar in herbicide treated plots (Abundance: 0.4–0.7 average captures/100 fence nights; richness of total reptiles provided as statistical model result) compared to unmanaged plots (Abundance: 0.2–0.5 average captures/100 fence nights). In 2008, mid-storey vegetation removal was carried out using herbicides. Reptiles were surveyed in herbicide-managed plots and unmanaged plots (4–5 plots/type each 225 x 225 m) using drift fences, pitfall and funnel traps in May–August one year pre-management (in 2008) and up to 5 years after management (in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014).

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  3. Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2014 in an upland mixed oak forest in the Appalachians, USA (Greenberg et al. 2016) found that prescribed burning did not increase the abundance or species richness of total reptiles, snakes or lizards when compared to unburned areas. Total reptile and snake species richness was similar in prescribed burn areas and unburned areas (data presented as statistical model results), as was lizard species richness (burned:0–0.4 species/plot; unburned: 0–0.8 species/plot).  Abundance of total reptiles was similar in prescribed burn areas (0.1–0.3 average captures/100 fence nights) compared to unburned areas (0.2–0.5 average captures/100 fence nights). Prescribed burn plots and unburned plots (five 5 ha plots of each in 2008, 2010–2011 and four plots of each in 2013–2014) were monitored using drift fences, pitfall and funnel traps in May to August one year pre-treatment (2008) and five years post treatment (sampled in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014; see paper for details of trap deployment).

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust