Reseed logged forest

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of reseeding logged forest on reptile populations. This study was in the USA.


  • Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that reptile communities in areas that were reseeded were not more similar to mature forest stands than those left to regenerate naturally.
  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas left to regenerate naturally.


  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile abundance compared to areas left to regenerate naturally.


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 study in 1991–1992 in sand-pine scrub forest in Florida, USA (Greenberg et al. 1994) found that clearcutting with reseeding did not have greater reptile species richness, abundance, or diversity than salvage logging with natural regeneration but that community composition differed between managed and unmanaged stands. Logging and seeding treatments were carried out together and it is not possible to distinguish their effects. Reptile species richness, abundance, diversity and evenness were similar between clearcutting with broadcast seeded (richness: 8 species/stand, abundance: 69 individuals/stand, Shannon Diversity Index: 0.7, evenness: 0.8, see paper for details), clearcutting with direct-drill seeded plots (7, 79, 0.6, 0.8), salvaged logged with natural regeneration (9, 41, 0.8, 0.8), and unmanaged stands (9, 31, 0.8, 0.8). Community composition was similar between all managed plots (0.88–0.95), but all managed plots were less similar to mature forest stands (0.54–0.65, results reported as Horn’s Index of Community Similarity, see original paper for details including individual species abundances). Forest stands were managed by: clearcutting with roller chopping and broadcast seeding, clearcutting with direct-drill machine-seeding and salvage logging with natural regeneration (following a high intensity wildfire) (three stands/management type). Reptiles were surveyed 5–7 years after management in August 1991–September 1992 by trapping every alternate two weeks using drift fences with pitfall and funnel traps. Reptiles were also trapped in three unlogged stands that had not been burned or otherwise managed for 55 years.

    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 20

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 Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered speciesVincet Wildlife Trust