Study

Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial salamanders

  • Published source details Harpole D.N. & Haas C.A. (1999) Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management, 114, 349-356

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–1997 in a hardwood forest in Virginia, USA (Harpole & Haa 1999) found that understory removal using herbicide did not affect the relative abundance of salamanders. Captures did not differ significantly before and after understory removal (9 vs 11/search). Abundance did not differ significantly within the untreated plot over time (1994: 10; 1995–1997: 8–10). Treatment was within a 2 ha plot. Salamanders were monitored along 15 x 2 m transects using artificial cover objects (50/plot).

     

  2. Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–1997 in a hardwood forest in Virginia, USA (Harpole & Haas 1999) found that retaining up to 12 wildlife and dead trees during a clear-cut did not prevent a decrease in the relative abundance of salamanders. Captures decreased significantly after treatment (before: 10; one year after: 7; three years: 1/search). Abundance did not differ within the unharvested plot (before: 10; one year after: 10; three years: 8). Treatments were on 2 ha plots. Salamanders were monitored along 2 x 15 m transects with artificial cover objects (50/plot).

     

  3. Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–1997 in a hardwood forest in Virginia, USA (Harpole & Haas 1999) found that leave-tree harvesting decreased relative abundance of salamanders in a similar way to clearcutting. Captures decreased significantly after both leave-tree harvesting (before: 8; one year after: 4; three years after: 1 amphibian/search) and clearcutting (before: 10; one year after: 7; three years after: 1/search). Abundance did not differ significantly within the unharvested plot (before: 10; one year after: 10; three years after: 8). Treatments on 2 ha plots were: leave-tree (up to 16 trees/ha retained), clearcutting (up to 12 wildlife and dead trees retained) and unharvested. Salamanders were monitored along 15 x 2 m transects with artificial cover objects (50/plot).

     

  4. Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–1997 in a hardwood forest in Virginia, USA (Harpole & Haas 1999) found that harvesting trees in small groups decreased the relative abundance of salamanders, similar to clearcutting. Captures decreased significantly after group harvesting (before: 14; one year after: 11; three years: 2/search) and clearcutting (before: 10; one year after: 7; three years: 1/search). Abundance did not differ significantly within the unharvested plot (before: 10; one year after: 10; three years: 8). Treatments on 2 ha plots were: group harvesting (three groups of 0.5 ha), clearcutting (up to 12 wildlife and dead trees retained) and unharvested. Salamanders were monitored along 2 x 15 m transects with artificial cover objects (50/plot).

     

  5. Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–1997 in a hardwood forest in Virginia, USA (Harpole & Haas 1999) found that shelterwood harvesting resulted in a decrease in the relative abundance of salamanders, similar to clearcutting. Captures decreased significantly after shelterwood harvests with 12–15 m2 basal area retained/ha (before: 9; one year after: 6; three years: 2/search) or 4–7 m2 basal area retained/ha (before: 12; one year after: 4; three years: 1/search) and on clearcut plots (before: 10; one year after: 7; three years: 1/search). Abundance did not differ significantly within the unharvested plot (before: 10; one year after: 10; three years: 8). Treatments on 2 ha plots were: two shelterwood harvests, clearcutting (up to 12 wildlife and dead trees retained) and unharvested. Salamanders were monitored along 15 x 2 m transects with artificial cover objects (50/plot).

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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