The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature
Abstract
Questions about the compatibility of forest harvesting practices and conservation of biological diversity are largely driven by concerns that habitat quality for many species may be degraded in intensively managed forest landscapes. We review the literature on relationships between common forest harvesting practices and the distribution and abundance of amphibians, a group that has attracted considerable attention in recent years because of their potential ecological importance in forest ecosystems and because of reports of widespread population declines. Clear-cut harvesting generally has negative short-term impacts on local amphibian populations, especially salamanders. An analysis of the results of 18 studies that examined the effects of clear-cutting on amphibians yielded a 3.5-fold median difference in abundance of amphibians on controls over clear-cuts. However, research on the influence of forest age suggests that the long-term effects of forest harvesting on amphibians are variable, and for many species these effects can be mitigated if regeneration practices leave adequate microhabitat structure intact. In contrast, long-term effects can be significant in forest plantations, which are often associated with intensive site preparations and stand management practices that modify levels of coarse woody debris and other microhabitats. Other forest practices reviewed for their effect on amphibians include prescribed fire, logging roads, and streamside harvesting. We discuss problems commonly encountered in the experimental design and measurement of forest amphibian populations, including a notable lack of pretreatment data, and outline several aspects of amphibian–forestry relationships in need of further research. Management recommendations relevant to conserving upland and riparian zone amphibian habitat during forest harvesting are offered.Key words: amphibians, clear-cutting, coarse woody debris, forest management, logging roads, plantations, prescribed fire, riparian, succession.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
ROADS AND THEIR MAJOR ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Forman, R. T. T., & Alexander, L. E. (1998) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207 · Cited by 2,364
Welsh, H. H., & Droege, S. (2001) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003558.x · Cited by 296
Miller, K. M., Dieffenbach, F. W., Campbell, J. P., Cass, W. B., Comiskey, J. A., Matthews, E. R., McGill, B. J., Mitchell, B. R., Perles, S. J., Sanders, S., et al. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1404 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- deMaynadier, P. G., & Hunter Jr., M. L.
- Venue
- Environmental Reviews
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1995-07-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 230-261
- ISSN
- 1181-8700 (ISSN-L)
- 1208-6053
- OpenAlex
- W2090525789
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/a95-012
- The paper
- deMaynadier, P. G., & Hunter Jr., M. L. (1995). The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. Environmental Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1139/a95-012
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.