Study

Conservation value of cacao agroforestry for amphibians and reptiles in South-East Asia: combining correlative models with follow-up field experiments

  • Published source details Wanger T.C., Saro A., Iskandar D.T., Brook B.W., Sodhi N.S., Clough Y. & Tscharntke T. (2009) Conservation value of cacao agroforestry for amphibians and reptiles in South-East Asia: combining correlative models with follow-up field experiments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 823-832.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create refuges

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Leave coarse woody debris in forests

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Create refuges

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2008 of a cacao plantation in Sulawesi, Indonesia (Wanger et al. 2009) found that adding woody debris and/or leaf litter to plots had no effect on overall amphibian abundance or species richness. However, following addition of woody debris plus leaf litter, Hylarana celebensis abundance increased and Asian toad Duttaphrynus melanostictus decreased. Forty-two plots (40 x 40 m2) were divided into four treatments: addition of woody debris (trunks and branch piles), addition of leaf litter, addition of woody debris plus leaf litter and an unmanipulated control. Monitoring was undertaken twice 26 days before and twice 26 days after habitat manipulation. Visual surveys were undertaken along both plot diagonals (transects 113 x 3 m).

     

  2. Leave coarse woody debris in forests

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2008 of a cacao plantation in Sulawesi, Indonesia (Wanger et al. 2009) found that removal of woody debris and/or leaf litter did not significantly effect overall amphibian abundance, but did decrease species richness. However, the abundance of Hylarana celebensis and Asian toad Duttaphrynus melanostictus increased following removal of woody debris and leaf litter. The abundance of Sulawesian toad Ingerophrynus celebensis decreased following removal of woody debris. Forty-two plots (40 x 40 m2) were divided into four treatments: removal of woody debris (trunks and branch piles), removal of leaf litter, removal of woody debris plus leaf litter and an unmanipulated control. Monitoring was undertaken twice on two occasions, 26 days before and 26 days after habitat manipulation. Visual surveys were undertaken along both plot diagonals (transects 3 x 113 m).

     

    (Summarised by: Rebecca K Smith)

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