lizards

Can frogs, salamanders and lizards show us the way to limb regeneration?

April 26, 2022 by Roger Downie

Roger Downie

Froglife and University of Glasgow

Limb loss in humans is a very significant source of disability and distress. One estimate is that in the USA alone, 3.6 million people will be affected by 2050, as a result of war and other traumatic injuries, or after diabetes-related amputation (Ziegler-Graham et al. 2008). There are two possible routes to the treatment of these losses. Until recently, the most hopeful way forward was advances in prosthetic limb development, related to robotic and micro-electronic engineering progress. Encouraging regeneration of the lost limb seemed less likely, despite many years of research. This is because organ regeneration in mammals is extremely limited in nature. However, recent work based at Tufts University in the USA, using the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis, suggests that limb regeneration in mammals could be stimulated with the right interventions (Murugan et al. 2022).

The ability to repair tissue damage is very widespread in the animal kingdom. In ourselves, the most obvious example is wound healing, with a complex sequence of events following an injury: local cessation of blood flow; blood clotting and formation of a scab to prevent entry of micro-organisms; mobilisation of surrounding cells to close the wound; tissue remodelling below the skin to tidy up the damage, sometimes involving formation of scar tissue. However, some animals have the capacity to replace complete and functional organs if they are lost. In amphibians and reptiles, this capability has an odd distribution.

Some species of lizards show autotomy, the deliberate loss of part or all of the tail in response to predator attack (autotomy also happens elsewhere in the animal kingdom: starfish, stick insects etc.). In these lizards, muscles in the tail on the body side contract, severing a line of weakness built into the vertebrae, and the predator is left with the twitching end of the tail, while the rest of the lizard escapes. The tail stump then heals, and the tail regenerates, but not as before. The regenerate is mis-shapen and its skeletal core is a stiff rod of tissue, rather than a set of vertebrae. If the lizard is attacked again, autotomy can only occur in the part of the tail containing the original structures. The costs and benefits of tail autotomy in lizards are finely balanced, and this ability has been lost and evolved many times in different lineages (Clause and Capaldi 2006). Where the tail is important in balance, as in fast-running species, or in social signalling, as a sign of quality as in Uta species (Fox 1998), autotomy tends to be rare or does not occur at all. Cooper et al. (2004) showed that selection related to predation pressure could influence the occurrence of autotomy in different populations of a single lizard species.

In newts and salamanders, adults can regenerate a range of complex organs: parts of the eye, brain, and heart, as well as limbs and tail. This does not involve autotomy, and unlike the case of lizard tails, regeneration results in the re-formation of a normal, functional limb or tail. Limb regeneration follows an orderly sequence: closing of the wound is followed by the formation of a ‘blastema’- a mass of tissue with the characteristics of tissue at the distal end of an embryonic developing limb. Somehow, the blastema ‘knows’ how much of the limb has been lost, and it reforms only the missing elements in order, from proximal to distal ends. As the process progresses, nerves grow into the regenerate, and these provide signalling molecules essential for full regeneration. The ability to regenerate limbs is somewhat variable between species, with larger species and individuals generally having less regenerative capacity than smaller ones (Joven et al. 2019).

In frogs and toads, regeneration of larval tails and early-stage limb buds occurs, but limb regeneration in adults hardly at all. In some families (pipids, discoglossids, hyperoliids), a blastema forms and a partial regenerate grows from the stump, a bit like the regenerated tails of lizards, but it never approaches the size and complexity of the original limb. In bufonids and ranids, wound healing occurs, but no regeneration at all (Scadding 1981). Mammals are like adult amphibians, with no limb regeneration at all.

This is where the new results from Murugan et al. are revelatory. After some years of technique development, they now report substantial hindlimb regeneration in experimentally-amputated Xenopus laevis adults ( X. laevis has a long history as a laboratory species for biological research following its early 20^th Century use in human pregnancy testing). The method involves applying a temporary ‘collar’ (called a ‘Biodome’) to the limb stump following amputation. The collar is made of silicone and silk fibres, impregnated with a solution containing a mix of five molecules known to act as signals during normal limb development (such as growth hormone and retinoic acid). It therefore provides a moist environment for the stump tissue, including limb development molecules that would not normally be present there in damaged adult Xenopus limbs. The collars were left in place for only 24 hours, then removed, and the frogs then followed for 18 months to assess how well the amputated limbs regenerated. After decades of failure in such experiments, the results were spectacular.

The regenerates formed went well beyond the mis-shapen spikes usually formed by Xenopus stumps. There was long-term growth, including formation of bones and other normal tissues, neuromuscular repair so that the limbs could move, and the formation of digit-like projections at the distal ends: the animals were able to use their repaired limbs for more or less normal movements. Murugan et al. comment that while regeneration was not perfect in their experiment, the set-up provides considerable scope for alteration of the details: the mix and concentration of the signalling molecules, the duration of their application; also, the possible addition of electrical stimulation, which has shown some positive effects in other experiments. The authors are hopeful that, if regeneration can be stimulated in Xenopus, similar methods may work for mammals, including humans.

The occurrence and distribution of organ regeneration has long intrigued biologists (Bely 2010). For example, why should complete regeneration occur in newt and salamander adults, but not at all in frogs and toads? One theory concerns the period of impairment while the limb is regenerating, which can take months. Newt locomotion can remain effective in the absence of a functional limb (in many species, the limbs are greatly reduced and even absent in some), whereas the absence of a frog hindlimb for some months would be disastrous. The argument from this is that limb regeneration in frogs would be too slow to be effective, and therefore that it does not occur. This argument can be extended to mammals: the high demand for food in warm-blooded animals means that a period of immobility while a limb regenerates would not be useful (Elder 1979). Most discussion of limb regeneration assumes that the benefit follows limb loss after predation, as in lizards, but there are very few studies investigating the ecological role of regeneration in newts and salamanders.

Finally, a comment on ethics. Those opposed to any animal experimentation will not approve of Murugan et al.’s studies. Those with a more utilitarian outlook, will hope that the discomfort and death of a hundred or so Xenopus will lead eventually to new treatments that could benefit millions of people (and even some other animals). Those who prioritise animal welfare will study the conditions under which the Xenopus lived and look to see that the experimental protocols minimised any pain and discomfort. However, there is another ethical aspect: on behalf of Tufts University, where the experiments have been done, patents for the methodology have been applied for. I find it distressing that scientists should seek to make profit from advances in medical research, especially when it has been publicly funded. The notion that, in the future, victims of war should have to pay a royalty to Tufts so that their limbs can be repaired, is distasteful. But then we are all used these days to noticing that some companies have done very well financially out of the Covid pandemic.

References

Bely, A.E. 2010. Evolution of animal regeneration: re-emergence of a field. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25, 161-170.

Clause, A.R. and Capaldi, E.A. 2006. Caudal autotomy and regeneration in lizards. Journal of Experimental Zoology 305A, 965-973.

Cooper, W.E. et al. 2004. Ease and effectiveness of costly autotomy vary with predation intensity among lizard populations. Journal of Zoology 262, 243-255.

Elder, D. 1979. Why is regeneration capacity restricted in higher organisms? Journal of Theoretical Biology 81, 563-568.

Joven, A. et al. 2019. Model systems for regeneration: salamanders. Development 146, dev167700.

Murugan, N.J. et al. 2022. Acute multidrug delivery via a wearable bioreactor facilitates long-term limb regeneration and functional recovery in adult Xenopus laevis. Science Advances 8 (4).

Scadding, S.R. 1981. Limb regeneration in adult amphibia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59, 34-46.

Ziegler-Graham et al. 2008. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States, 2005-2050. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 89, 422-429.

Discovering Reptiles with Citizen Science

January 27, 2022 by Mirran Trimble

Reptile conservation within the UK is currently facing a big challenge; the lack of data. To develop targeted and effective conservation strategies, it is essential to have sufficient data on the species you want to conserve. This presents a real problem for UK reptiles, as there is very little public data available. However, we can remedy this if more people are aware of our wonderful native reptiles, any and all sightings are recorded, and survey effort is increased across the UK.

Every single reptile sighting, whether it is a one-off chance encounter or a planned survey, provides a valuable data point. So, how can you turn your wildlife encounter into useable data? Well, we’ve made it quick and easy for you with our free Froglife Dragon Finder App! Whenever you spot a reptile (or amphibian!), simply record your sighting on the app there and then.

If you are not sure you can ID the animal in front of you, not to worry. The app is full of information and ID tips to help. You can also select ‘Identify Species’ on the home page and you will be led through a series of questions to a final species ID. Download the app today for free, or find out more about it here! If you’re still unsure, try to take a photo or make a note of the animal’s appearance, and send this to mirran.trimble@froglife.org. Mirran is the Discovering Reptiles Project Officer, and she can help you identify any reptile sightings.

Citizen science is a key tool for collecting data and building the scientific knowledge needed to develop conservation strategies. For reptiles, citizen science has huge potential to make a real difference moving forward. If you know there are species in your garden, allotment or local green space, go find them and record your sightings! If you’d like to go a step further, we desperately need more people undertaking reptile surveys across the UK. These are straightforward to do and you can commit as much or little time as you have. To learn more about how to survey for reptiles, see our handy online guide here.

We can all do our bit to protect the UK’s native reptiles, and the Dragon Finder App has made it easier than ever to contribute! All sightings recorded on the Dragon Finder App will help us to build a more accurate picture of reptiles in the UK and develop appropriate conservation priorities. All recordings uploaded onto our app are also sent to the National Biodiversity Network and are publicly available.

The effect of the climate crisis on UK reptile populations

February 22, 2021 by Zak Mather-Gratton

Back in 2018 we discussed some of the impacts of climate change on amphibians worldwide (Froglife 2018). Since then, climate change has continued to accelerate, with global average temperatures in 2020 more than 1oC warmer relative to pre-industrial levels. The 2015 Paris Agreement has not, so far, caused nations to reduce their emissions anywhere near fast enough (Global Carbon Project 2020). The extent of future warming is projected to reach somewhere between 2 – 4^oC or above, dependent upon a range of scenarios (IPCC 2014). The magnitude and speed of this change is unprecedented, and the impacts upon wildlife are already being seen.

We know that wildlife and their habitats – collectively termed the ‘biosphere’ – are in a fine, dynamic and interconnected balance. Unpicking the exact drivers of population changes is not straightforward, because they themselves are interacting in complex ways. What’s clear is that climate change is an additional stress factor for wildlife worldwide, on top of (and often accelerating) habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution and the impact of invasive species. In the UK climate change is predicted to cause hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters. There will be greater extremes of weather, as well as sea level rise (Met Office 2019).

So how might the UK’s terrestrial reptiles be affected by climate change?
To begin to answer this, we can consider the direct effects of climate change on reptile physiology and behaviour, and indirect impacts from changing trophic interactions (populations of predators and prey), and from changes to reptile habitats (Le Galliard et al. 2012).

UK reptiles are more or less at the northernmost edge of the range for their species, although the adder, common lizard and slow worm have Scandinavian populations at higher latitudes. These three species are viviparous, meaning embryos develop within the body of the adult and born live. The smooth snake is ovoviviparous, which can be described as a more primitive form of viviparity, where the eggs develop within the mothers body. Sand lizards and grass snake are oviparous, meaning they lay their eggs externally, and embryos are therefore more reliant on environmental factors for their development.

All UK reptiles however, have cousins residing in the warmer southerly climes of Iberia and Central Europe and the Balkans. So, we could assume that warmer climate here will improve survival in existing reptile populations, while enabling a northward shift of their distributions. Unfortunately, the reality is not that simple. Dunford and Berry (2012) modelled UK reptile population changes under low and high emissions scenarios for 2050 and 2080. Grass snakes appeared to be the only species consistently predicted to shift northward while maintaining the majority of their present distribution (see Cathrine, 2014 for tantalising evidence of Scottish grass snake populations), while slow worms showed a mixed northward shift with a contraction of southern populations. For all other species modelling predicted widespread population decline, greater under a higher emissions scenario (Dunford and Berry 2012).

Being ectothermic, reptiles are highly sensitive to their environment, with a tight bell curve describing their optimal climatic conditions (Le Galliard et al. 2012). Temperature and rainfall strongly influence reptile behaviour, and a changing climate has great potential to create mismatches – for example if temperature and rainfall is suboptimal either for reptiles or their prey species, especially at key points in the year such as hibernation emergence. Climate change is already affecting reptile prey populations and will continue to do so. For example Ewald et al. (2015) identified numerous invertebrate groups demonstrating sensitivity to extreme climate events over the last four decades. These trends must be considered alongside the ongoing impact of other pressures, particularly pesticide use (van Klink et al. 2020), all of which creates a complex picture. Climate impacts will vary between species groups and depend upon other biogeographical factors, meaning that impacts will not be the same everywhere for a given species.

In the UK, warming should increase reptile growth and maturation rates, due to longer periods of activity. Milder winters will likely reduce hibernation lengths for our reptiles. Earlier spring emergence, and activity extending further into the autumn and winter months would likely bring reproduction forward in the year, as gestation and incubation length is generally shorter in warmer climates. Larger body sizes in warmer climates may result in greater reproductive success (Le Galliard et al. 2012). Warm temperatures also enable a greater number of number of broods per year, observed in slow worms (Smith 1990), and common lizards (Bestion et al. 2015). However, life cycle changes may have additional impacts on population demographics and survival. Bestion et al. (2015) created experimental common lizard populations in climate-controlled chambers, with populations either subject to current average temperatures or those matching IPCC predictions for the coming century. Warming increased growth rates, brought reproduction forward, and resulted in a higher number of broods per season. However, this life cycle acceleration was coupled with a reduction in adult survival rates. Of several possible causes, the authors proposed the most likely to be greater metabolic requirements for larger individuals, with warmer temperatures increasing energetic requirements which could not be met fully by increased foraging, particularly when warm weather restricted their activity.

Our fragmented UK landscape creates major barriers for all wildlife. Reptile species are generally philopatric (tending to return to or remain near the same particular area), and so are especially sensitive to habitat loss, with populations often centred around relatively small habitat pockets or managed reserves. So even if a warmer climate could result in populations expanding northward, whether this will occur in reality depends on whether there are routes and habitats for them to do so. Araujo et al. (2006) simulated climate change driven UK reptile population dynamics under assumptions of unlimited and zero dispersal ability. Unlimited dispersal resulted in population expansion, with some local extinctions in southerly locations. Zero dispersal resulted in population contractions for all UK species, indicating climate change driven population collapse. This demonstrates the importance of considering all factors influencing population viability and dispersal in combination with climate change pressures.

Adders are usually reliant on specific habitat patches and are highly sensitive to habitat destruction and hibernation area disturbance due to their low recolonization abilities, even relative to other reptile species. On a local level, given typically small population sizes and low mobility, climate change driven habitat quality declines could result in local extinctions particularly as they may not have suitable adjacent habitat, nor the inclination to move (Gleed-Owen and Langham 2012). Although McInerny (2018) indicates that implementing appropriate mitigation can enable adder populations to persist alongside human modifications to local habitats, the adders ongoing decline nationwide is concerning (Baker et al. 2002, Gardner et al. 2019), which even a low emissions climate change scenario is likely to exacerbate (Dunford and Berry 2012).

adder

The dual pressures of habitat loss and climate change are even more apparent for our two most limited reptiles, the sand lizard and the smooth snake. Sand lizards can be found on lowland heath as well as coastal sand dunes. Smooth snakes are only known to be present on lowland heath in the south of England. Populations are generally isolated with little capacity for dispersal, creating a barrier to adaptation to changing conditions. Climate change could threaten habitat quality, for example increased frequency of heavy rainfall events could destroy sand lizard nests and reduce juvenile survival rates (Edgar and Bird 2006), while increased fire prevalence and sea level rise could destroy important habitat features. Dunford and Berry (2012) paint a particularly dire picture for the sand lizard, as its reliance upon highly specific landscape features such as south facing slopes and complex habitat mosaics makes the species highly sensitive to habitat loss. A small population of sand lizards has persisted on the Scottish Isle of Coll, since their introduction for research in the 1970s. Comparing the climate change resilience of this northern and relatively isolated population with that of other UK populations will be an interesting topic for study over the next few decades.

Heathland habitats are one of our most heavily impacted by urbanisation in the UK. Although direct loss through land-use change is now controlled by planning and environmental legislation, development in surrounding areas continues to increase pressure on remaining isolated heathland patches, through increased fire risk, predation by domestic animals and disturbance (Hayhow et al. 2019). Fagundez (2013) describes further pressures facing heathlands under climate change, including fires, and shifts in vegetation composition. We are used to a static conservation model for our heaths. As climate change progresses, the ideal climatic conditions for heath will likely expand in Britain (Thomas et al. 1999), and Loidi et al. (2010) point out that extensive lowland heaths throughout southern Europe support a greater diversity of reptiles than we see here. However, whether habitats will be able to expand is an entirely human choice (Coll et al. 2016, Hayhow et al. 2019).

All of the pressures we have presented here are anthropogenic in origin, born from human choices, and our expectations of how we can and should manage the land and its resources. The enormity of shifting these practices cannot be underestimated, but at least it is within our abilities to do it!

Written by Zak Mather-Gratton

References
Araújo, M.B., Thuiller, W. and Pearson, R.G., 2006. Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Journal of biogeography, 33(10), pp.1712-1728.

Baker, J., Suckling, J. and Carey, R., 2002. Status of the adder Vipera berus and the slow-worm Anguis fragilis in England. English Nature.

Bestion, E., Teyssier, A., Richard, M., Clobert, J. and Cote, J., 2015. Live fast, die young: experimental evidence of population extinction risk due to climate change. PLoS Biol, 13(10), p.e1002281.

Cathrine, C., 2014. Grass Snakes (Natrix natrix) in Scotland. Glasgow Naturalist, 26(Part 1), pp.36-40.

Coll, J., Bourke, D., Hodd, R.L., Skeffington, M.S., Gormally, M. and Sweeney, J., 2016. Projected climate change impacts on upland heaths in Ireland. Climate Research, 69(2), pp.177-191.

Dunford, R.W. and Berry, P.M., 2012. Climate change modelling of English amphibians and reptiles: Report to Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust (ARC-Trust).

Edgar, P. and Bird, D.R., 2006. Action plan for the conservation of the Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis) in Northwest Europe. Document T-PVS/Inf (2006), 18.

Ewald, J.A., Wheatley, C.J., Aebischer, N.J., Moreby, S.J., Duffield, S.J., Crick, H.Q. and Morecroft, M.B., 2015. Influences of extreme weather, climate and pesticide use on invertebrates in cereal fields over 42 years. Global Change Biology, 21(11), pp.3931-3950.

Fagúndez, J., 2013. Heathlands confronting global change: drivers of biodiversity loss from past to future scenarios. Annals of Botany, 111(2), pp.151-172.

Froglife 2018. Amphibians and Climate Change. Croaking Science
Gardner, E., Julian, A., Monk, C. and Baker, J., 2019. Make the adder count: population trends from a citizen science survey of UK adders. Herpetological Journal, 29, pp.57-70.

Gleed-Owen, C. and Langham, S., 2012. The Adder Status Project–a conservation condition assessment of the adder (Vipera berus) in England, with recommendations for future monitoring and conservation policy.

Report to Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. ARC, Bournemouth, UK.
Global Carbon Project. 2020. Carbon budget and trends 2020. [www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget] published on 11 December 2020

Hayhow, D.B., Eaton, M.A., Stanbury, A.J., Burns, F., Kirby, W.B., Bailey, N., Beckmann, B., Bedford, J., Boersch-Supan, P.H., Coomber, F. and Dennis, E.B., 2019. State of nature 2019.

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

van Klink, R., Bowler, D.E., Gongalsky, K.B., Swengel, A.B., Gentile, A. and Chase, J.M., 2020. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science, 368(6489), pp.417-420.

Le Galliard, J.F., Massot, M., Baron, J.P. and Clobert, J., 2012. Ecological effects of climate change on European reptiles. Wildlife conservation in a changing climate, pp.179-203.

Loidi, J., Biurrun, I., Campos, J.A., García‐Mijangos, I. and Herrera, M., 2010. A biogeographical analysis of the European Atlantic lowland heathlands. Journal of Vegetation Science, 21(5), pp.832-842.

McInerny, C.J., 2019. The study and conservation of adders in Scotland. The Glasgow Naturalist Volume 27, p.67.

Met Office, 2019. UK climate projections: Headline findings.
Smith, N.D., 1990. The ecology of the slow-worm (Anguis fragilis L.) in southern England. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton.

Thomas, J.A., Rose, R.J., Clarke, R.T., Thomas, C.D. and Webb, N.R., 1999. Intraspecific variation in habitat availability among ectothermic animals near their climatic limits and their centres of range. Functional Ecology, 13, pp.55-64.

Tips to avoid waste when gardening

May 16, 2014 by admin

Slow Worms can often be found in compost heaps. Photo Nick Meade — Photo Nick Meade

Sometimes saving money and being environmentally conscious go hand in hand. More people are getting into the habit of looking around for cheap electricity deals and are prepared to switch providers than in previous years. We are also becoming more aware of the impact of our lifestyles on energy consumption in the home and beyond. In the home, this translates into energy-saving practices such as turning off lights and appliances when not in use, washing clothes and dishes at lower temperatures and choosing energy efficient models when purchasing new appliances.

We are also becoming more conscious of the waste we throw away. Usually we think about food waste and packaging. There are many ways to reduce food waste, including meal planning and freezing meals, and with excess packaging we can vote with our feet to reward retailers that follow environmentally friendly policies. But what about our garden waste? Many people often think of garden waste as not really waste – after all, it’s all green, isn’t it? Surely it will just compost down somewhere. Green waste is not usually sent to landfill because it decomposes under anaerobic conditions – without oxygen – producing methane, a key contributor to global warming.

baby grass snake, LCB May11 So councils usually encourage people to compost at home where they can, or take it to community recycling and composting schemes. Having a compost heap at home is not only a great way of getting rid of your garden waste but also provides a great habitat for slow worms and grass snakes who enjoy the warmer temperatures generated by the decomposing material.

In some areas green bins are provided, but with more councils starting to charge for green waste collection it can all add to household bills. Nearly a third of councils charge households for green bins, and the costs can be up to around £70. Charges are made to subsidise the cost of collection and composting. In some areas, garden waste can account for around a quarter of household waste, so it’s not an insignificant amount of material to be dealing with.

Wildflower garden Fortunately, there are several areas where we can cut back to reduce the amount of material that ends up in the green bin. It’s understandable to want to tidy up grass cuttings after we’ve mown the lawn, but leaving them can not only save on our green waste but also provide nutrients for your lawn. The clippings will naturally begin to be absorbed after two days or so and the added nutrients will encourage thicker and healthier growth. Alternatively, you could consider a slower growing turf, allowing some areas of grass to grow longer to provide safer areas for wildlife to move through or even getting rid of your lawn completely and converting it to a wild flower meadow which will attract bees and encourage biodiversity.

Weed growth can be controlled by a number of different methods. You could try mulching, where a layer of material such as bark is spread over the top of soil. Pulling up weeds when they’re young is easier and they can just be left on top of the soil to dry out. You can also cut out the light weeds need by growing plants that give good ground cover.

Paying attention to your plants and their life cycles will help to reduce garden waste. Shrubs can typically be pruned just when the branches are young. Prunings can be left in the garden as log piles to act as basking spots, shelter and attract food for reptiles. Putting plants in a place that is appropriate for them will cut back on the maintenance required to keep them in good condition. Choose slow growing species and dwarf and alpine plants that won’t create a lot of new growth. To provide the best amphibian and reptile habitats its’ vital to create a variety of plant heights.

What you can do:
• Find out more about wildlife friendly gardening
• Record sightings of amphibians and reptiles using our Dragon Finder App
• Report dead or diseased wildlife to the Garden Wildlife Health project

To find out how you can sponsor a croak please contact:

Last chance: Share your frog thoughts & enter our prize draw

March 5, 2014 by admin

Froglife’s national survey about perceptions of amphibians and reptiles is coming to an end on the 14^th of March. We are asking people what they think about snakes, newts, frogs, lizards and toads as part of a project supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund to investigate how the animals are viewed. We would love to know your thoughts about wildlife and charity, and you can find the online survey here.

Questions include your favourite animals and thoughts about wildlife conservation, your opinions on amphibians and reptiles, a bit of an ID quiz as well as about the charitable causes closest to your heart.

We’re not looking for right or wrong answers; we’re really interested in honest responses to help us get a better understanding of the challenges we face when talking about our work. You can find out more about the aims of The Scale of the Problem project here.

Through taking part, you can also enter a prize draw to win over £50 worth of goodies from the Froglife online shop, with a prize for over 18s and under 18s who take part.

Under 18s prize — *The prize for under 18s includes a cuddly frog, pond dipping kit and frog back pack from the online shop*

The results so far have been really interesting, with Hedgehogs the most popular answer to the favourite animal question. 95% of the respondents so far have seen a frog in the wild in the UK, compared to 64% having seen a snake. We are also hearing, perhaps unsurprisingly, that many people are affected by financial concerns when choosing to support charities, and have cut back donations. All of the information we gather through the survey will be analysed by marketing experts Emerald Frog to help us strengthen our fundraising and campaigning techniques, enabling us to better support amphibians and reptiles into the future.

It would be wonderful if you could take the time to share your thoughts and experiences before the 14^th of March, to help shape the future of Froglife’s communications and campaigns. Thank you!

lizards

Footer

Contact us