Action

Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime in grassland

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    10%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    70%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies (including one before-and-after, site comparison study) in the USA and Argentina found that annual prescribed fires in grassland decreased numbers of amphibian species and abundance or, along with changes in grazing regime, increased rates of species loss.
  • One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that spring, but not autumn or winter burns, decreased salamander abundance.

 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study in 1989–2003 of tallgrass prairie in Kansas, USA (Wilgers et al. 2006) found that rates of species loss were significantly higher during burn years compared to non-burn years (0.04 vs 0.00). However, authors considered that strong conclusions could not be reached because of confounding effects of changes in both burning and grazing. From 1989 to 1998, management was traditional season-long stocking (0.6 cattle/ha) with burning in alternate years. From 1999, management changed to intensive-early cattle stocking (1.0 cattle/ha) for three months from late spring combined with annual burning. Amphibians were surveyed in April annually along a 4 km transect.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, before-and-after study in 1988–2008 of 25 wetlands in grassland and forest reserves in Indiana, USA (Brodman 2010) found that the relative abundance of salamanders declined following prescribed spring, but not autumn or winter burns. There was a significant decline (33–63%) in the abundance of three of four species following spring burns. Open habitat (grassland and savanna) salamanders took two years to recover and abundance often exceeded that before the burn. Declines were not associated with autumn or winter burns and tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum and eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens increased at two sites after an autumn burn. Monitoring was undertaken the year before and after burns. Each site was visited monthly for three months in spring and one in summer or autumn. Visual searches, minnow traps, dipnets and seines were used to survey entire small ponds (< 0.25 ha) and 50 m of adjacent upland habitat, or along transects for larger ponds.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A site comparison study in 2006 of cattle pasture in Corrientes, Argentina (Cano & Leynaud 2010) found that amphibian diversity, species richness and abundance was significantly lower following annual prescribed fires. Species richness and abundance was significantly lower with annual prescribed fire with or without grazing (richness: 7–9; abundance: 17–23) compared to sites that had not been burned for three or 12 years (richness: 10; abundance: 46–49). Diversity was significantly lower at the site with annual prescribed fire and grazing (1.3 vs 1.9–2.1). Species composition differed most between the unburned site and that with annual prescribed fire and grazing (Sorensen’s similarity index = 0.58). Only two of 12 species showed significant differences between treatments. The four historic treatments (≥ 400 ha) were: annual prescribed fire (August–September) without or with grazing (3 ha/cattle unit), three years since a prescribed fire, and no fire or grazing for 12 years. Monitoring was undertaken using drift-fencing with pitfall traps in January–April 2006.

     

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Smith, R.K., Meredith, H. & Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Amphibian Conservation. Pages 9-65 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Amphibian Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Amphibian Conservation

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 latest volume: Volume 17

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the 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