Action

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  

  • One study evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on reptiles. This study was in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile species richness compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile abundances compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 replicated, site comparison in 2007–2010 in farmed temperate woodlands in New South Wales, Australia (Michael et al. 2014) found that agri-environment schemes did not increase reptile species richness or abundance after one–three or six–eight years of conservation management compared to areas managed purely for livestock production and areas of unmanaged woodland. Overall reptile species richness and abundance was similar in sites with one–three years of agri-environment scheme management (2–3 species/site, 11–19 individuals/site) and six–eight years of agri-environment scheme management (2–4, 13–23). Sites with agri-environment schemes were also similar compared to sites managed purely for livestock production (3–4, 12–20) and sites of unmanaged woodland (2–3, 18–29). See paper for details of individual species abundances. In 2007, one hundred and five >2 ha woodland sites (of four different vegetation types) on 53 farms were established, which had been managed in one of four ways: short-term agri-environment schemes (removing or reducing livestock grazing, revegetation and control of introduced plants and animals since 2007; 16 sites); long-term agri-environment schemes (managed for biodiversity outcomes since before 2003; 32 sites); managed purely for livestock production (grazed with higher stocking densities and occasional fertilizer application; 40 sites), or unmanaged woodland (woodlands established 150 years prior, vegetation not cleared and rarely grazed, 17 sites). During October 2008, August 2009 and August 2010, reptiles were monitored in each site using 30-minute active searches under artificial refuges (four 1.2 m railway sleepers, four roof tiles and 1 m2 pile of corrugated steel) along one 200 x 50 m transect/site.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Reptile Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Reptile Conservation
Reptile Conservation

Reptile Conservation - Published 2021

Reptile synopsis

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 19

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 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