Study

Amphibian distributions in riparian and upslope areas and their habitat associations on managed forest landscapes in the Oregon Coast Range

  • Published source details Kluber M.R., Olson D.H. & Puettmann K.J. (2008) Amphibian distributions in riparian and upslope areas and their habitat associations on managed forest landscapes in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 529-535

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Thin trees within forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Thin trees within forests

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2005 of three coniferous forest sites in Oregon, USA (Kluber, Olson & Puettmann 2008) found that there was no significant difference between amphibian captures in thinned and unharvested sites 5–6 years after harvest. Captures did not differ significantly between treatments for all amphibians, western red-backed salamanders Plethodon vehiculum or ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii. Each site (12–24 ha) had two streams within forest that had been thinned (200–600 trees/ha) with riparian buffers (6 m or over 15 m wide) in 2000 and one stream with no harvesting. Amphibians were sampled by visual counts once in April–June within five 5 x 10 m plots at four distances (up to 35 m) from each stream.

     

  2. Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2005 of three forest sites in Oregon, USA (Kluber, Olson & Puettmann 2008) found that there was no significant difference between amphibian captures in riparian buffers and unharvested forest 5–6 years after harvest. Captures did not differ significantly between thinned and unharvested, or between two buffer widths (6 and >15 m) for all amphibians, western red-backed salamanders Plethodon vehiculum or ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii. However, captures did decrease significantly with distance from stream for all amphibians and red-backed salamanders. Captures varied with distance for ensatina. Overall, 60% of captures occurred within 15m of the stream. Each 12–24 ha site had two streams within forest that had been thinned (600 to 200 trees/ha) with riparian buffers (6 m or >15 m wide) retained in 2000 and one stream with no harvesting. Amphibians were sampled by visual counts once in April-June within five 5 x 10 m plots at four distances from each stream (up to 35 m).

     

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

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 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