Study

Short-term response of reptiles and amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest

  • Published source details Greenberg C.H. & Waldrop T.A. (2008) Short-term response of reptiles and amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 2883-2893.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Manage vegetation by cutting or mowing

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Use prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime in forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 2001–2004 of upland hardwood forest in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg & Waldrop 2008) found that mechanical understory reduction significantly increased amphibian species richness, but not abundance. Species richness was significantly higher in understory reduction plots compared to controls (6 vs 3). However, there was no significant difference in the relative abundance of total amphibians compared to controls (18 vs 17 captured/100 nights), total anurans (frogs and toads; 11 vs 10), salamanders (8 vs 4), American toads Bufo americanus (10 vs 10) or green frog Rana clamitans (2 vs 1). There were three randomly assigned replicates of treatment and control plots. Mechanical removal of shrubs was undertaken in winter 2001–2002 using chainsaws. Drift-fences with pitfall and funnel traps were used for monitoring in August–October 2001 and May–September 2002–2004.

     

  2. Manage vegetation by cutting or mowing

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2004 in an upland hardwood forest in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg & Waldrop 2008; same experimental set-up as Greenberg et al. 2018) found that mechanically cutting understory vegetation did not increase overall reptile abundance or species richness. Total reptile relative abundance and species richness were both similar after mechanical understory removal (abundance in 2002: 8–13 reptiles/100 nights; richness in 2002: 4–6 species) compared to the year before it took place (abundance in 2001: 4–8 reptiles/100 nights; richness in 2001: 2 species). Reptile abundance increased 40% in all sites (including those with no management) between the two years, but this was not related to understory removal (see original paper for details). Three forest segments were divided into management zones (14 ha each): mechanical vegetation removal and no management. Chainsaws were used to remove understory vegetation in winter 2001–2002. Reptiles were surveyed using drift fences with pitfall and funnel traps before any management took place in August–October 2001 and after management in May–September 2002–2004. In total 13 reptile species were caught.

  3. Use prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2004 in an upland hardwood forest in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg & Waldrop 2008, same experimental set-up as Greenberg et al. 2018) found that using prescribed burning combined with mechanically removing understory vegetation did not increase reptile species richness, but had mixed effects on reptile abundance depending on the species or species group. In the two years after management was carried out, reptile species richness was similar in plots with burning and mechanical vegetation removal, burning only and plots with no management (1–4 species/plot). Total reptile abundance was higher with burning and mechanical vegetation removal (6.0–8.7 reptiles/100 nights) compared to burning alone (1.4–2.7), but no different from either mechanical vegetation removal only (4.4–4.5) or unmanaged (3.0–3.2). Eastern fence lizards Sceloporus undulatus were also more abundant with burning and mechanical vegetation removal (1.9–2.7 individuals/100 nights) compared to burning alone (0–0.2), but similar to mechanical removal only (0.5–1.4) and no management (0.5–0.8). See original paper for other individual species abundances. Three forest segments were divided into four management zones (14 ha each): prescribed burn with mechanical vegetation removal, prescribed burn only, mechanical vegetation removal only, and no management. Chainsaws were used to remove mid-storey vegetation in winter 2001–2002 and prescribed burns took place in March 2003. Reptiles were surveyed using drift fence arrays with pitfall and funnel traps before any management took place in August–October 2001 and after management in May–September 2002–2004.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2004 in an upland hardwood forest in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg & Waldrop 2008, same experimental set-up as Greenberg et al. 2018) found that burned and unburned areas had similar abundance and species richness of reptiles. Reptile species richness was similar in burned and unburned areas (1–2 species). Total reptile abundance was also similar in burned (1–3 reptiles/100 nights) and unburned (3 reptiles/100 nights). See original paper for other individual species abundances. Three forest segments were divided into different management zones (14 ha each): prescribed burn and unburned. Reptiles were surveyed using drift fence arrays with pitfall and funnel traps before any burning took place in August–October 2001 and after burning in May–September 2002–2004.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  5. Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime in forests

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 2001–2004 in hardwood forest in Carolina, USA (Greenberg & Waldrop 2008) found that prescribed burns did not increase overall amphibian abundance or species richness, but did increase abundance of frogs and toads. The relative abundance of total amphibians, salamanders and green frog Rana clamitans did not differ significantly between treatments. However, abundances of anurans (frogs and toads) and American toads Bufo americanus were significantly higher in burn treatments compared to controls (anurans: 52–54 vs 8; American toads: 50 vs 10 captured/100 nights). Species richness did not differ significantly (burned: 5; burned with understory reduction: 5; control: 3). There were three 14 ha replicates of each randomly assigned treatment: prescribed burn, burn and mechanical understory reduction and controls. Understory reduction was undertaken in winter 2001–2002 and burns in March 2003. Drift-fences with pitfall and funnel traps were used for monitoring in August–October 2001 and May–September 2002–2004.

     

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 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