Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation We found no evidence for the effects of encouraging aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F796https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F796Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:40:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native crayfish We found no evidence for the effects of removing or controlling non-native crayfish 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F797https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F797Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:42:03 +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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F825https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F826https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F827https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F829Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:59:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control viperine snakes One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that numbers of Mallorcan midwife toad larvae increased after intensive, but not less intensive, removal of viperine snakes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F830https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F830Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:01:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control mammals One controlled study in New Zealand found that controlling rats had no significant effect on numbers of Hochstetter’s frog. One controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of Maud Island frogs was significantly higher in a predator-proof enclosure than in the wild. One study in New Zealand found that at 58% of translocated Hamilton's frogs survived the first year within a predator-proof enclosure. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:39:17 +0100