Study

Relocation of amphibians to created seasonal ponds in southwestern Ohio

  • Published source details Weyrauch S.L. & Amon J.P. (2002) Relocation of amphibians to created seasonal ponds in southwestern Ohio. Ecological Restoration, 20, 31-36

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Translocate salamanders (including newts)

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Create ponds for salamanders (including newts)

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Create ponds for frogs

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Translocate frogs

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Translocate salamanders (including newts)

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 1995–2000 of two created ponds in Ohio, USA (Weyrauch & Amon 2002) found that translocated spotted salamanders Ambystoma maculatum, but not tiger salamanders Ambystoma tigrinum, reproduced in created ponds.  Four adult spotted salamanders and one egg mass were found in one pond in 1997 and three egg masses in the other pond in 2000.  Metamorphs were produced in both ponds in 1996–1998.  Tiger salamanders were not recorded following their introduction.  Ponds were created in 1995–1997 and were 2–4 m deep.  Vegetation, plankton and organic matter (from local wetlands) were added.  Spotted salamander eggs (600–1,100), larvae (40–850) and metamorphs (4–33) and tiger salamander metamorphs (0–25) were translocated in spring 1996–1998 and 2000.  Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fencing and pitfall traps surrounding ponds, dip-netting and egg counts.

     

  2. Create ponds for salamanders (including newts)

    A small, replicated, before-and-after study in 1995–2000 of two created ponds in agricultural land and a reserve in Ohio, USA (Weyrauch & Amon 2002) found that translocated spotted salamanders Ambystoma maculatum, but not tiger salamanders Ambystoma tigrinum reproduced in created ponds. Four adult spotted salamanders and one egg mass were found in one pond in 1997 and three egg masses in the other pond in 2000. Both ponds produced metamorphs in 1996–1998. Tiger salamanders were not recorded following translocation. Ponds were created in 1995–1997 and were 2–4 m deep. Water, vegetation, plankton and organic matter (from local wetlands) were added. Spotted salamander eggs (600–1100), larvae (40–850) and metamorphs (4–33) and tiger salamander metamorphs (0–25) were added in spring 1996–1998 and 2000. Amphibians were monitored using drift-fencing and pitfall traps around ponds and by dip-netting and egg counts.

     

  3. Create ponds for frogs

    A small, replicated, before-and-after study in 1995–2000 of two created ponds in agricultural land and a reserve in Ohio, USA (Weyrauch & Amon 2002) found that translocated gray tree frogs Hyla versicolor did not reproduced in created ponds. Gray tree frogs were heard calling at one pond in 2000, but no evidence of breeding was found. Green frogs Rana clamitans, northern leopard frogs Rana pipiens and American toads Bufo americanus colonized both and bred in one pond. Ponds were created in 1995–1997 and were 2–4 m deep. Water, vegetation, plankton and organic matter (from local wetlands) were added. Larvae (0–35) and metamorphs (0–4) were added in spring 1996–1998 and 2000. Amphibians were monitored drift-fencing and pitfall traps around ponds and by dip-netting and egg counts.

     

  4. Translocate frogs

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 1995–2000 of two created ponds in Ohio, USA (Weyrauch & Amon 2002) found that translocated gray tree frogs Hyla versicolor did not reproduced in created ponds. Evidence of reproduction was not recorded, although frogs were heard calling at one pond in 2000. Ponds were created in 1995–1997 and were 2–4 m deep. Vegetation, plankton and organic matter (from local wetlands) were added. Gray tree frog larvae (0–35) and metamorphs (0–4) were translocated to the pond in spring 1996–1998 and 2000. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fencing and pitfall traps surrounding ponds, dip-netting and egg counts.

     

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