Action

Sterilize equipment when moving between amphibian sites

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    10%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    40%

Study locations

Key messages

  • 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.

 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 30 artificial pools in Switzerland (Schmidt et al. 2009) found that Virkon S disinfectant did not affect survival, mass or behaviour of common frog Rana temporaria and common toad Bufo bufo tadpoles, but bleach did. Survival did not differ between Virkon treatments for frogs (untreated: 70–100%; low dose: 90–100%; high dose: 40–100%) or toads (untreated: 90–100%; low dose: 100%; high dose: 70–100%). All tadpoles died within 1–2 days in high dose bleach. Survival was significantly lower in low dose bleach than untreated water for frogs (20–100 vs 70–100%) and toads (40–100 vs 90–100%). Frog tadpole mass was significantly higher in low dose bleach (0.5–0.6 g) than other treatments (0.3–0.5 g). Toad tadpole mass did not differ (0.2–0.4 g). The proportion of tadpoles feeding did not differ significantly for frogs (0.4–0.9) or toads (0.6–0.9). Local leaves, phytoplankton, zooplankton and a snail were added to artificial pools (80 L). Disinfectants (bleach 2%; Virkon 10 g/L) that would be used for boots and field equipment were applied to pools once a week at high (0.04 L) or low doses (0.004 L), with 0.060 L or 0.096 L of water respectively. Water was added as the control. Treatments were replicated five times and assigned randomly to tubs. Ten frog and toad tadpoles were added to each treatment.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 2011 of captive moor frogs Rana arvalis at Uppsala University, Sweden (Hangartner & Laurila 2012) found that Virkon S disinfectant had no significant effects on moor frog embryos and hatchlings, but did reduce hatching success. Embryonic survival was significantly lower in the low (92%), but not high concentration of Virkon S (94%) compared to the control (99%). Abnormalities were infrequent in all treatments (low: 3%; high: 4%; control: 1%). Hatchling body length did not differ between treatments (5 mm). However, hatching success was lower with Virkon S compared to without, suggesting that it may have weak negative effects on amphibian embryos. Embryos and hatchlings were reared at 19°C in high (5 mg/L) and low (0.5 mg/L) Virkon S concentrations and in a control of water. One embryo and six hatchlings from each of six clutches were used per treatment. Survival was recorded daily until the free swimming stage and hatchling length for seven days.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Smith, R.K., Meredith, H. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Amphibian Conservation. Pages 9-64 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Amphibian Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Amphibian Conservation
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 18

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