Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Five studies evaluated the effects of using signage to warn motorists of wildlife presence on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in each of Dominica and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): One of two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the USA found that installing road signs reduced road mortalities of massasaugas in autumn but not summer. The other study found that installing road signs did not reduce road mortalities of painted or Blanding’s turtles. Two before-and-after studies (one replicated) in Canada and the USA found that a combination of installing road signs with either fencing and tunnels or a hybrid nestbox-fencing barrier resulted in fewer road mortalities of massasaugas and diamondback terrapins. One before-and-after study in Dominica found that a combination of using road signs and running an awareness campaign resulted in fewer road mortalities of Antillean iguanas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3524https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3524Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:05:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or increase leaf litter or other types of mulch Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining or increasing leaf litter or other types of mulch on reptile populations. One study was in Indonesia and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Indonesia found that reptile species richness increased with the addition of leaf litter and decreased following removal of leaf litter and woody debris. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two randomized, controlled studies (one replicated, before-and-after study) in Indonesia and Australia found that the addition of leaf litter or cacao husks resulted in a higher abundance of overall reptiles or skinks. One study also found that removal of leaf litter and woody debris led to a decrease in reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3525Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:12:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Diversify ground vegetation and canopy structure in the habitat around woody crops Two studies evaluated the effects of diversifying ground vegetation and canopy structure in the habitat around woody crops on reptile populations. One study was in Puerto Rico and the other was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Spain found that olive groves with natural ground cover had higher reptile species richness and diversity than those with bare ground, but groves planted with a single species as ground cover had similar richness and diversity as those with bare ground. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Puerto Rico found that two of three lizard species were less abundant in shade-grown coffee plantations than in sun-grown plantations. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Spain found that olive groves with ground cover had more reptiles than groves with bare ground. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3526Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:18:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees on farmland Two studies evaluated the effects of planting trees on farmland to benefit reptiles. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in Australia found that pastures with tree plantings had similar rare reptile species richness compared to pastures with no trees, but that more rare species were present with 50% canopy cover compared to 5% cover. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that farms with restoration planting (of native ground cover and trees) had lower reptile species richness than farms with remnant vegetation (of old growth woodland or natural regrowth). POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in Australia found that pastures with tree plantings had higher abundance of rare reptiles than pastures with no trees, and that rare reptiles were more abundant with 50% canopy cover compared to 5% cover. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3527https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3527Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:32:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing crossings over/under pipelines on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3528Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:34:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit vessel numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting vessel numbers on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3529Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:37:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches on farmland on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3530Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:39:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit vessel speeds Three studies evaluated the effects of limiting vessel speeds on reptiles. One study was in each of Australia, Costa Rica and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found that in waterways with enforced speed limits, fewer spectacled caiman were found dead with boat-related injuries compared to waterways with no speed limits. One replicated study in the USA found that vessels travelling at lower speeds caused fewer catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells, though vessels with jet motors caused no catastrophic injuries at any speed tested. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found that in waterways with enforced speed limits, fewer spectacled caiman were found with boat-related injuries compared to waterways with no speed limits. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that green turtles were more likely to flee from vessels travelling at lower speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3531https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3531Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:40:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing and maintaining anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3532Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:45:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish protocols to reduce collisions We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing protocols to reduce collisions on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3533https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3533Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:56:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train vessel operators on appropriate avoidance techniques to reduce collisions We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of training vessel operators on appropriate avoidance techniques to reduce collisions. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3534https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3534Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:58:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use technology and reporting systems to avoid collisions We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using technology and reporting systems to avoid collisions. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3535https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3535Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:02:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual or acoustic deterrents to discourage reptiles from approaching vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using visual or acoustic deterrents to discourage reptiles from approaching vessels. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3536https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3536Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:06:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One controlled study found that using a horizontal-fin propeller guard or a cage propeller guard did not reduce catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using no guard, but that the types of injuries sustained were different. One controlled study found that using a jet drive outboard motor reduced catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using a standard outboard motor. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:07:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regulate wildlife harvesting Four studies evaluated the effects of regulating wildlife harvesting on reptile populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, Australia, Indonesia and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Australia found that following legal protection and harvest regulations, the density of saltwater crocodile populations increased. One before-and-after study in Japan found that following regulation of the green turtle harvest in combination with allowing harvested turtles to lay eggs prior to being killed, the number of nesting females tended to be higher. Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in Japan found that following regulation of the green turtle harvest in combination with allowing harvested turtles to lay eggs prior to being killed, the number of hatchlings produced in natural nests tended to be higher. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that following legal protection and harvest regulations, the average size of crocodiles increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated study in Costa Rica found that in an area with a legalized turtle egg harvest run by a community cooperative, a majority of people reported a willingness to do more to protect sea turtles. One study in Indonesia reported that quotas to regulate wildlife harvesting did not limit the number of individuals of three reptile species that were harvested and exported. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3538https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3538Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:33:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Commercially breed reptiles to reduce pressure on wild populations One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of commercially breeding reptiles to reduce pressure on wild populations. This study was in the Cayman Islands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)   OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One study in the Cayman Islands found that where there was a commercial turtle farm, consumption and purchase of wild turtle products was rare, though some residents still showed a preference for wild turtle meat. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3539https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3539Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:45:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of enforcing regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of reptiles. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3540Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:50:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Patrol or monitor nesting beaches Seven studies evaluated the effects of patrolling or monitoring nesting beaches on reptile populations. Three studies were in Costa Rica and one was in each of the US Virgin Islands, Mexico, Mozambique and the Dominican Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after site comparison study in Costa Rica found that olive ridley turtle nests that were moved to a patrolled hatchery and nests that were camouflaged on the nesting beach had similar hatching success. One replicated, controlled study in the Dominican Republic found that on beaches with regular patrols, hatching success of leatherback turtle nests was higher than in nests relocated to hatcheries. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (6 studies): Two studies in the US Virgin Islands and Costa Rica found that during years when beach patrols were carried out poaching of leatherback turtle nests decreased. Three studies (including two before-and-after studies) in Costa Rica and Mexico found that when beach patrols were carried out in combination with either an education programme for local communities, limiting beach access or camouflaging nests and moving nests to a hatchery, poaching of leatherback turtle nests and olive ridley turtle nests decreased. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no green turtle egg collection or hunting of adults was recorded. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3541Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:56:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptiles One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptile populations. This study was in St Kitts1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in St Kitts1 found that fishers that took jobs on a turtle management project reported that they ceased turtle fishing activity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3542https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3542Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:10:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3543https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3543Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:21:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit commercial fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting commercial fishing. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3544https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3544Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:22:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fishery closures Three studies evaluated the effects of establishing temporary fishery closures on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where a fishing agreement was implemented that involved seasonal fishing restrictions along with a wider set of measures had more river turtles than areas that did not implement the agreement.  Survival (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that during seasonal closures of shrimp trawling there were fewer lethal strandings of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles. One study in the USA found that following the re-opening of a swordfish long-line fishery with turtle catch limits in place, loggerhead turtle bycatch reached the annual catch limit in two of three years, and when the limit was reached the fishery was closed for the rest of the year. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3545https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3545Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:27:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit or prohibit specific fishing methods One study evaluated the effects of limiting or prohibiting specific fishing methods on reptile populations. This study was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that in areas where a fishing agreement was implemented that involved limiting the use of gill nets along with a wider suit of measures had more river turtles than areas that did not implement the agreement. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3546https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3546Wed, 08 Dec 2021 09:26:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deploy fishing gear at different depths Three studies evaluated the effects of deploying fishing gear at different depths on reptile populations. One study was in each of Canada, off the coast of Mexico and the Atlantic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired study in Canada found that no turtles died in floated nets, but some died in submerged nets. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired study in Canada found that turtles caught in floated nets were less at risk of drowning than those caught in submerged nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated studies) in Canada, Mexico and the Atlantic found that bottom-set fishing nets with fewer buoys caught fewer sea turtles than standard nets or that fewer loggerhead turtles were caught when longline hooks were set below 22 m deep, but the number of leatherback turtles caught was unaffected by hook depth. The other study found that floated and submerged nets caught a similar number of turtle species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3547https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3547Wed, 08 Dec 2021 09:29:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set commercial catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting commercial catch quotas. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3548Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:05:07 +0000
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue