Study

Effects of timber harvest on amphibian populations: understanding mechanisms from forest experiments

  • Published source details Semlitsch R.D., Todd B.D., Blomquist S.M., Calhoun A.J.K., Whitfield-Gibbons J., Gibbs J.P., Graeter G.J., Harper E.B., Hocking D.J., Hunter M.L., Patrick D.A., Rittenhouse T.A.G. & Rothermel B.B. (2009) Effects of timber harvest on amphibian populations: understanding mechanisms from forest experiments. BioScience, 59, 853-862.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave coarse woody debris in forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Thin trees within forests

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

    A replicated, controlled study in 2003–2009 of 12 ponds in deciduous, pine and mixed-deciduous and coniferous forest in Maine, Missouri and South Carolina, USA (Semlitsch et al. 2009) found that overall, retaining coarse woody debris during clearcutting had a greater negative effect on amphibian population, physiological and behavioural responses than removing debris, when compared to unharvested forest (-32 vs -19%). However, 14 of 33 response variables were less negative, four less positive, three more negative and 12 the same when debris was retained compared to removed, when compared to unharvested controls. Four treatments were assigned to quadrats (2–4 ha) around each breeding pond (4/region): partial harvest (opposite control), clearcut with woody debris retained or removed and an unharvested control. Treatments were applied in 2003–2005. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fence and pitfall traps, radio-telemetry and in aquatic (200–1,000 Litres) and terrestrial (3 x 3 m or 0.2 m diameter) enclosures. Different species (n = 9) were studied at each of the eight sites. Response variables were abundance, growth, size, survival, breeding success, water loss, emigration and distance moved.

     

    (Summarised by: Rebecca K Smith)

  2. Thin trees within forests

    A replicated, controlled study in 2003–2009 of 12 ponds in deciduous, pine and mixed-deciduous and coniferous forest in Maine, Missouri and South Carolina, USA (Semlitsch et al. 2009) found that overall, partially harvesting forest had a negative effect on amphibian population, physiological and behavioural responses, but a smaller negative effect than clearcutting (−7 vs −19 to 32%). Sixteen of 34 response variables were negative, 10 positive and eight the same as unharvested forest. Four treatments were assigned to quadrats (2–4 ha) around each breeding pond (4/region): partial harvest (opposite control; 50–60% reduction), clearcut with coarse woody debris retained or removed and unharvested. Treatments were applied in 2003–2005. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fence and pitfall traps, radiotelemetry and aquatic (200–1,000 Litres) and terrestrial (3 x 3 m or 0.2 m diameter) enclosures. Different species (n = 9) were studied at each of the eight sites. Response variables were abundance, growth, size, survival, breeding success, water loss, emigration and distance moved.

     

     

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 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