Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use antibacterial treatment to reduce chytridiomycosis infection Two studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled study) in New Zealand and Australia found that treatment with chloramphenicol antibiotic ointment (Bishop et al. 2009) or solution, with other interventions in some cases, cured green tree frogs and one Archey’s frog of chytridiomycosis. One replicated, controlled study found that treatment with trimethoprim-sulfadiazine increased survival time but did not cure blue-and-yellow poison dart frogs of chytridiomycosis.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F763https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F763Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:30:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use antifungal skin bacteria or peptides to reduce chytridiomycosis infection Three of four randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that adding antifungal bacteria to the skin of salamanders or frogs exposed to the chytrid fungus did not reduce chytridiomycosis infection rate or death. One found that adding antifungal bacteria to frogs prevented infection and death. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding antifungal skin bacteria to soil significantly reduced chytridiomycosis infection rate of red-backed salamanders. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found that treatment with antimicrobial skin peptides before or after infection with chytridiomycosis did not significantly increase survival of common toads. Three randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that adding antifungal skin bacteria to chytrid infected amphibians reduced weight loss.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F764https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F764Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:10:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat amphibians with chytridiomycosis in the wild or pre-release One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that treating wild midwife toads with fungicide, along with pond drying, reduced infection levels but did not eradicate chytridiomycosis.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F767Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:18:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use gloves to handle amphibians We found no evidence for the effects of using gloves on the spread of disease between amphibian populations or individuals. A review for Canada and the USA found that there were no adverse effects of handling 22 amphibian species using disposable gloves. However, three replicated studies (including one controlled study) in Australia and Austria found that deaths of tadpoles were caused by latex gloves for all four species tested, by vinyl gloves for three of five species and by nitrile gloves for the one species tested.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F769https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F769Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:45:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use temperature treatment to reduce chytridiomycosis infection Four of five studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Australia, Switzerland and the USA found that increasing enclosure or water temperature to 30–37°C for over 16 hours cured frogs and toads of chytridiomycosis. One found that heat treatment at 30–35°C for 36 hours did not cure northern leopard frogs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F770https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F770Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:15:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies) in the USA found that understory removal using herbicide had no effect or some negative effects on amphibian abundance. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that following logging American toad abundance was similar and wood frogs lower in stands with herbicide treatment and planting compared to stands left to regenerate naturally.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F778https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F778Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:38:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use humans to assist migrating amphibians across roads Two studies (including one replicated study) in Italy and the UK found that despite assisting toads across roads during breeding migrations, 64–70% of populations declined over 6–10 years. One study in the UK  found that despite assisting toads across roads during breeding migrations, at 7% of sites over 500 toads were still killed on roads. Five studies in Germany, the UK and Italy found that large numbers of amphibians were moved across roads by patrols. Numbers ranged from 7,532 toads moved before and after breeding to half a million moved during breeding migrations annually. In the UK, there were over 400 patrols and 71 patrols spent an average of 90 person-hours moving toads and had been active for up to 10 years.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F784https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F784Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:52:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations One review found that legislation to reduce trade in two frog species resulted in the recovery of the over-exploited populations. One study in South Africa found that the number of permits issued for scientific and educational use of amphibians increased from 1987 to 1990.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F785https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F785Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:10:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use amphibians sustainably We found no evidence for the effects of using amphibians sustainably. '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%2F793https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F793Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:36:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no evidence for the effects of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance 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%2F795https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F795Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:38:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use zooplankton to remove zoospores We found no evidence for the effects of using zooplankton to remove chytrid zoospores 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%2F800https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F800Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use irrigation systems for amphibian sitesOne study investigating the effect of applying water to an amphibian site is outlined in ‘Threat: Energy production and mining - Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F804https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F804Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:01:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding Three replicated studies (including two randomized studies) in Australia and the USA found that the success of artificial fertilization depended on the type and number of doses of hormones used to stimulate egg production. One replicated study in Australia found that 55% of eggs were fertilized artificially, but soon died.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F834https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F834Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:57:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signage to warn motorists One study in the UK found that despite warning signs and human assistance, over 500 toads were killed on some roads.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F841https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F841Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:56:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting Two studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that compared to clearcutting, leaving a low density of trees during harvest did not result in higher salamander abundance. Two studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that compared to no harvesting, leaving a low density of trees during harvest decreased salamander abundance and changed species composition. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that compared to unharvested plots, the proportion of female salamanders carrying eggs, eggs per female or proportion of juveniles were similar or lower in harvested plots that included leave-tree harvests, depending on species and time since harvest.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F846https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F846Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:21:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention instead of clearcutting We found no evidence for the effect of retaining patches of trees rather than clearcutting on amphibian populations. One replicated study in Canada found that although released red-legged frogs did not show significant movement towards retained tree patches, large patches were selected more and moved out of less than small patches.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F847Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:30:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA found that compared to clearcutting, shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher, similar or initially higher and then similar salamander abundance. A meta-analysis of 24 studies in North America found that partial harvest, which included shelterwood harvesting with three other types, resulted in smaller reductions in salamander populations than clearcutting Two of three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA found that compared to no harvesting, shelterwood harvesting decreased salamander abundance and changed species composition. One found that shelterwood harvesting did not affect salamander abundance. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that compared to unharvested plots, the proportion of female salamanders carrying eggs, eggs per female or proportion of juveniles were similar or lower in harvested plots that included shelterwood harvested plots, depending on species and time since harvest.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F851https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F851Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:42:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate toads Two of four studies (including two replicated studies) in Denmark, Germany, the UK and USA found that translocating eggs and/or adults established common toad breeding populations. One found populations of garlic toads established at two of four sites. One found that breeding populations of boreal toads were not established. One before-and-after study in Denmark found that translocating green toad eggs to existing populations, along with aquatic and terrestrial habitat management, increased population numbers. Three studies (including one before-and-after study) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that 33–100% of translocated adult toads reproduced, 19% survived up to six years or some metamorphs survived over winter. One replicated study in South Africa found that translocated Cape platanna metamorphs survived up to 23 years at one of four sites.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F855https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F855Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:17:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate wood frogs Two studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that translocated wood frog eggs established breeding populations in 25–50% of created ponds. One replicated study in the USA found that translocated wood frog eggs hatched and up to 57% survived as tadpoles in enclosures in restored ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F856Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:19:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate natterjack toads Three studies (including one review) in France and the UK found that translocated natterjack toad eggs, tadpoles, juveniles or adults established breeding populations at one site or in 30–70% of cases, some of which also released head-started or captive-bred animals or included habitat management. The review found that re-establishing toads on dune or saltmarsh habitat was more successful than on heathland. One replicated study in the UK found that natterjack toad populations increased at sites established by translocations, particularly with replicated translocations of wild rather than captive-bred toads. Two replicated, before-and-after studies in Estonia and the UK found that translocating natterjack toad eggs or tadpoles resulted in breeding at 8–70% of sites, some of which had been restored.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F859https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F859Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:48:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate salamanders (including newts) One review and three before-and-after studies in the UK and USA found that translocated eggs or adults established breeding populations of salamanders or smooth newts. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that one of two salamander species reproduced following translocation of eggs, tadpoles and metamorphs.  One before-and-after study in the USA found that translocated salamander eggs hatched and tadpoles had similar survival rates as in donor ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F860Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:03:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime in grassland Two studies (including one before-and-after, site comparison study) in the USA and Argentina found that annual prescribed fires in grassland decreased numbers of amphibian species and abundance or, along with changes in grazing regime, increased rates of species loss. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that spring, but not autumn or winter burns, decreased salamander abundance.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F862https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F862Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:42:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime in forests Eight of 14 studies (including three randomized, replicated, controlled studies) in Australia, North America and the USA found no effect of prescribed forest fires on amphibian abundance or numbers of species. Four found that forest fires had mixed effects on amphibian abundance depending on species, species and year or season of burn. Three found that fires increased amphibian abundance or numbers of species. One found that abundance decreased with fires. Two studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled study) in the USA found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance increased or abundance decreased with time since prescribed forest fires. One before-and-after study in the USA found that spotted salamander hatching success increased following a prescribed forest fire.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F877https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F877Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:56:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use antifungal treatment to reduce chytridiomycosis infection Twelve of 16 studies (including four randomized, replicated, controlled studies) in Europe, Australia, Tasmania, Japan and the USA found that antifungal treatment cured or increased survival of amphibians with chytridiomycosis. Four studies found that treatments did not cure chytridiomycosis, but did reduce infection levels or had mixed results. Six of the eight studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies) in Japan, Tasmania, the UK and USA testing treatment with itraconazole found that it was effective at curing amphibians of chytridiomycosis. One study found that it reduced infection levels and one found mixed effects. Six studies found that specific fungicides caused death or other negative side effects in amphibians.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F882https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F882Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:44:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use hormone treatment to induce sperm and egg release during captive breeding One review and nine of 10 replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies) in Austria, Australia, China, Latvia, Russia and the USA found that hormone treatment of male amphibians stimulated or increased sperm production (Mansour, Lahnsteiner & Patzner 2010, Silla 2011) or resulted in successful breeding in captivity. One found that hormone treatment of males and females did not result in breeding. Four found that the amount and viability of sperm produced was affected by the type, amount or number of doses of hormone. One review and nine of 14 replicated studies (including six randomized and/or controlled studies) in Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, Latvia and the USA found that hormone treatment of female amphibians had mixed results, with 30–71% of females producing viable eggs following treatment, or with egg production depending on the combination, amount or number of doses of hormones. Three found that hormone treatment stimulated egg production or successful breeding in captivity. Two found that hormone treatment did not stimulate or increase egg production. Five replicated studies (including one controlled study) in Canada, Latvia and the USA found that eggs induced by hormone treatment were raised successfully to tadpoles, toadlets or froglets in captivity. Two replicated studies, one of which was small, in Ecuador and the USA found that most toads died before or soon after hatching.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F883https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F883Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:54:08 +0100
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust