Study

Prescribed fire impacts to amphibians and reptiles in shelterwood-harvested oak-dominated forests

  • Published source details Keyser P.D., Sausville D.J., Ford W.M., Schwab D.J. & Brose P.H. (2004) Prescribed fire impacts to amphibians and reptiles in shelterwood-harvested oak-dominated forests. Virginia Journal of Science, 55, 159-168.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

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. Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1995–1996 in oak forests in Virginia, USA (Keyser et al. 2004) found that more lizards were captured, but there were similar numbers of reptile species in burned compared to unburned sites. One year after burning, lizards were captured more often in burned (2–3 individuals/plot) than unburned forest (1 individuals/plot). One snake was caught each in burned and unburned plots (see original paper for individual species capture rates). Overall reptile richness was 2–4 species in burned and 3 species in unburned plots (results were not statistically tested). Plots in three forest stands (2–5 ha) were burned in February, April or August 1995 in a randomized block design or left unburned. All plots had been subject to shelterwood harvest 3–5 years before burning. Reptiles were monitored using pitfall traps one year after burning for 53 nights during June–October 1996 (12,720 total trap nights).

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson, Katie Sainsbury)

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

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1995–1996 of shelterwood-harvested oak stands in Virginia, USA (Keyser et al. 2004) found that prescribed burns did not affect amphibian abundance or species richness. There were no significant differences in relative abundances between burned and unburned sites for all amphibians (burned: 10–15; unburned: 6), eastern red-backed salamanders Plethodon cinereus (7–11 vs 3) or American toads Bufo americanus (3 vs 2). Amphibian species richness did not differ significantly between burned and unburned sites (2–3 vs 5). Three replicates (2–5 ha) of four randomly assigned treatments were applied in 1995: burning in February, April or August, or unburned. Three uncut reference sites were also monitored. Amphibians were monitored using pitfall traps (20/site) for 53 nights in June, July and October 1996.

     

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