Reduce competition from native amphibians

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

10%
Certainty

23%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Management for threatened amphibian species can sometimes include reducing numbers of a common amphibian species that compete for resources.

Study locations

Key messages

One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that natterjack toad populations did not increase following common toad control.

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

A replicated, site comparison study in 1985–2006 of 20 sites in the UK (McGrath & Lorenzen 2010) found that natterjack toad Bufo calamita populations did not increase following control of common toads Bufo bufo. However overall, natterjack population trends were positive at sites that had received species-specific management that included aquatic and terrestrial habitat management and common toad control. Trends were negative at unmanaged sites. Five of the 20 sites showed positive population trends, five showed negative trends and 10 trends were not significantly different from zero. Data on populations (egg string counts) and management activities over 11–21 years were obtained from the Natterjack Toad Site Register. Habitat management for toads was undertaken at seven sites. Management varied between sites, but included pond creation, adding lime to acidic ponds, maintaining water levels, vegetation clearance and implementation of grazing schemes. Translocations were also undertaken at seven of the 20 sites.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
McGrath A.L. & Lorenzen K. (2010) Management history and climate as key factors driving natterjack toad population trends in Britain. Animal Conservation, 13, 483-494.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Amphibian Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Reduce competition from native amphibians Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Remove or control invasive cane toads Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link