Study

Manipulation of coarse woody debris affected amphibian abundance and reptile abundance and diversity in South Carolina, USA

  • Published source details Owens A.K., Moseley K.R., McCay T.S., Castleberry S.B., Kilgo J.C. & Ford W.M. (2008) Amphibian and reptile community response to coarse woody debris manipulations in upland loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 2078-2083

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave coarse woody debris in forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Create refuges

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Leave coarse woody debris in forests

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that the removal of coarse woody debris did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity. Plots with all downed and standing woody debris removed did not differ significantly from controls in terms of abundance (1–2 vs 2), species richness (7 vs 7) or diversity (17–18 vs 19). The southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala had greater capture rates with removal rather than addition of woody debris (0.11 vs 0.02/night). Treatments were randomly assigned to 9 ha plots within three forest blocks. The first set of treatments was undertaken in 1996–2001 and a second set in 2002–2005. Control plots had no manipulation of woody debris. Five drift-fence arrays with pitfall traps/plot were used for sampling in 1998–2005.

     

  2. Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that amphibian abundance, species richness and diversity did not differ with removal or creation of snags within forest. Abundance, species richness and diversity did not differ significantly between plots with 10-fold increase in snags (1/night; 7; 17 respectively), removal of all snags and downed course woody debris (2; 7; 18) and unmanipulated controls (2; 7; 19). Captures of anurans, salamanders and six individual species did not differ between treatments. Treatments were randomly assigned to 9 ha plots within three forest blocks. The first set of treatments was undertaken in 1996–2001 and the second set in 2002–2005. Five drift-fence arrays with pitfall traps/plot were used for sampling in 1998–2005.

     

  3. Create refuges

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that adding coarse woody debris to forest did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity. Plots with added downed woody debris did not differ significantly from controls in terms of amphibian abundance (1–2 vs 2), species richness (6–7 vs 7) or diversity (17 vs 19). One species, the southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala, had lower capture rates with the addition compared to removal of woody debris (0.02 vs 0.11/night). Treatments were randomly assigned to 9 ha plots within three forest blocks. The first set of treatments was undertaken in 1996–2001 and a second set in 2002–2005. Woody debris was increased five-fold. Control plots had no manipulation of woody debris. Five drift-fence arrays with pitfall traps/plot were used for sampling in 1998–2005.

     

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 17

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