Thin trees within forests

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Six studies evaluated the effects of thinning trees within forests on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in each of Brazil, Spain and Australia.


  • Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Spain found that areas of thinned forest had similar reptile species richness compared to areas with no thinning. One study also found that thinned areas had lower species richness than areas of open habitat. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that areas of forest thinned 8–20 years previously had higher diversity of reptiles than areas thinned less than eight or more than 20 years previously, or than areas with no thinning.


  • Abundance (6 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Brazil, the USA, and Spain found that areas of thinned forest had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to areas with no thinning. One study found mixed effects of thinning trees on the abundance of three lizard species. The other study found that areas of thinned forest had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas with no thinning. That study also found that areas with the most thinning had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to areas of open habitat. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that areas of forest thinned 8–20 years previously had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas thinned at other times or areas with no thinning. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas of thinned forest had a higher abundance of snakes than clearcut forest.


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, randomized, controlled study in 1987–1997 in tropical forest in Amazonas, Brazil (Lima et al. 2001) found that after killing (‘girdling’) non-commercial tree species of >25 cm trunk diameter, density of one of three lizard species was reduced 12 years later compared to unmanaged areas. Twelve years after non-commercial trees were girdled, striped whiptail lizard Kentropyx calcarata density (1–3 lizards/plot) was reduced compared to in unmanaged areas (4–6 lizards/plot), but density was similar for giant ameiva Ameiva ameiva (girdled: 1–4 individuals/plot; no management: 0–5 individuals/plot) and black-spotted skink Mabuya nigropunctata (girdled: 0–1 individuals/plot; no management: 0–2 individuals/plot). In 1985, non-commercial trees >25 cm diameter at breast height were killed (‘girdled’, see original paper for details) in three forest plots (4 ha each). Lizards were surveyed in girdled plots and three 4 ha plots with no historical management on foot by walking six 200 x 20 m transects in each plot during daytime in August–October 1996 and July 1997. The maximum number of lizards counted/plot was used as a measure of density.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2004–2006 in pine forests in South Carolina, USA (Todd & Andrews 2008) found that snake abundance was higher in thinned compared to clearcut forest. The number of snakes captured was higher after thinning (180 individuals) compared to clearcutting (80–102 individuals). Numbers of snakes captured in unharvested plots was 137. Four circular forest sites were divided into four plots and each plot was randomly assigned one of four treatments: 85% thinned, clearcut with coarse woody debris retained, clearcut with coarse woody debris removed and unharvested for >30 years. Logging was from February to April 2004. Reptiles were sampled using drift fences with pitfall traps. Traps were checked every 1–2 days from April 2004 to July 2006 except for August.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2006–2007 in hardwood forests in North Carolina, USA (Matthews et al. 2010) found that overall reptile species richness and capture rates were similar in areas with tree thinning compared to unmanaged areas. Overall reptile richness and overall reptile, snake and turtle captures were similar after thinning by mechanical cutting (richness: 6–7 species/100 array nights, overall captures: 6 individuals/100 array nights, snakes: 1–2 individuals/100 array nights, turtles: 0 individuals/100 array nights) and no management (richness:6, overall captures: 7, snakes: 3–5, turtles: 0). Three plots each (10 ha) were managed with mechanical-cutting (using chainsaws to cut trees and understory, 2001–2002) or not managed. Reptiles were surveyed in May–August 2006 and 2007 using drift fences with pitfall traps (‘arrays’, 3/site).

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2005–2008 in mixed forest in Alabama, USA (Sutton et al. 2013) found no clear effects of thinning on the abundance of six reptile species when compared to areas that were left unmanaged. The abundance of all six species (eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus, green anole Anolis carolinensis, little brown skink Scincella lateralis, five-lined skink Plestiodon fasciatus, copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix and eastern racer Coluber constrictor) remained similar following heavy and light thinning compared to unmanaged areas (see paper for individual species abundances). In 2005–2008, three 9 ha plots each were either lightly thinned (17 m2/ha tree retention), heavily thinned (11 m2/ha tree retention) or left unmanaged (9 plots in total). Reptiles were surveyed for 3–6 months before management began (564 total trap nights in April–August) and in the two years after management (3,132 total trap nights in March–September) using drift fences with pitfall traps. Individuals were marked before release.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, controlled study in 2014 in pine forest in Granada, Spain (Azor et al. 2015) found that thinning trees in commercial forest by 66% increased reptile abundance but not species richness compared to thinning by 50% or no thinning. Reptile abundance was greater in 66%-thinned forest (11 reptiles/plot) compared to 50%-thinned (3 reptiles/plot) or unthinned forest (3 reptiles/plot) but similar to reptile abundance in open landscape (9 reptiles/plot). Reptile species richness was similar in 66%-thinned (2 species/plot), 50%-thinned (1 species/plot) and unthinned forest (1 species/plot), but lower than species richness in open landscape (3 species/plot). In 2010, a pine plantation with 600 trees/ha was managed by thinning 66% and 50% of trees in 20–37 ha areas. Reptiles were surveyed using a visual encounter method along u-shaped line transects in May-June 2014 in four plots each of 66% thinning, 50% thinning, as well as in four plots each with no tree thinning and in adjacent open landscape (all plots 100 x 35 m, 16 total plots). Each plot was surveyed four times at least five days apart.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A replicated, controlled study in 2015–2016 in pine and eucalypt woodland in north-west New South Wales, Australia (Gonsalves et al. 2018) found that reptile abundance and diversity were higher 8–20 years after tree thinning compared to <8 years or >20 years after thinning. Reptile abundance was 2–4.5 times greater and reptile diversity was 1.4–1.5 times greater 8–20 years after thinning than in unthinned, thinned <8 years ago, thinned >20 years ago or undisturbed forest (data reported as statistical model outputs, see original paper for details). In total 85 reptiles of 21 different species were caught across all sites (see original paper for changes in individual species abundances). The effect of tree thinning on reptiles was monitored in five 20–30 ha plots in 30 historically-managed forestry sites (non-commercial and commercial). Plots had the following thinning history: thinned <8 years ago using mechanical and manual brushcutting (thinnings left on site), thinned 8–20 years ago (larger stems for saw logs were removed from the site), thinned >20 years ago (thinnings left on site), unthinned (~6,500 stems/ha) and long undisturbed (see original paper for details). Reptiles were surveyed along a 200 m transect in each plot using nocturnal spotlighting (sampled once/plot, dates not provided) and drift fence/pitfall trap arrays (two traps/array, two arrays/plot) in October–November 2015 (eight days) and March 2016 (four days).

    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 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