Manage vegetation using livestock grazing

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of managing vegetation using livestock grazing on reptile populations. One study was in France and one was in the USA.



  • Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in France found that one reptile species was more abundant in areas grazed by sheep than in areas managed by burning, whereas the abundance of five other species was similar in all areas.
  • Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that after grazing cattle to restore bog turtle habitat, along with providing artificial nest covers, more bog turtle eggs were laid and hatching success was higher than before.


  • Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that bog turtle nests were laid only in areas that had been grazed in the current or previous growing season.

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 site comparison study in 2016 in an area of heathland in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France (Pernat  et al. 2017) found that one of six reptile species was more abundant in a site grazed by sheep than in sites that were burned 5–12 years previously, whereas the other five species were similarly abundant across all sites. More western green lizards Lacerta bilineata were found in the grazed area (1.5 lizards/site) than in any of the burned areas (0.1 lizards/site for all burned sites), whereas no difference was found between grazed or burned areas in the number of wall lizards Podarcis muralis (0–4 lizards/site) or the number of four snakes species (green whip snake Hierophis viridiflavus, viperine snake Natrix maura, grass snake Natrix natrix and European asp Vipera aspis; data not presented). An area of heathland (135 ha) was managed by annual sheep grazing or prescribed burning. One grazed site and three burned sites (all sites 8–10 ha) were selected (one each burned 5, 10 or 12 years ago). In 2016, a total of 96 cover boards (corrugated roofing tiles) were split between the four areas (24 boards/area), and 10 surveys were conducted in April–June. Reptiles found on or under cover boards were counted.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 2009–2016 in wet meadow and marsh in New York State, USA (Travis et al. 2018) found that after grazing cattle to restore bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii habitat along with using artificial nest covers, more eggs were laid in more nests, hatching rates increased and more juveniles were observed. Results were not statistically tested. More bog turtle eggs were laid after grazing commenced and artificial nest covers were used (2012–2016: 15–47 eggs in 3–12 nests/year) compared to before (2009–2010: 7–8 eggs in 2–3 nests/year). After grazing started, all nests were found in areas that had been grazed in the current or previous growing season. Overall hatching success was 52% (58 of 112 eggs hatched) compared to 27% when nests were not protected and there was no grazing (4 of 15 eggs hatched). More juveniles were observed at the end of the grazing program (2016: 6 juveniles/year) compared to at the start (2012: 1 juvenile/year). In 2012–2014 and 2016, one or both of two adjacent fenced paddocks (3.6 ha total area, 1.6 ha of bog turtle habitat) were grazed by 0.6–1.4 cattle/ha for 5–21 weeks in April-October (see original paper for details) and bog turtle nests were protected by mesh-cloth artificial nest covers (12 x 12 x 12 cm). In 2009–2010, there was no grazing and bog turtle nests were not protected. Nests were located by surveying on foot in 2009–2016 (2014 data were excluded). Turtles were monitored by radio tracking and on foot observations in 2012–2016.

    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