Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gully pots and kerbs One before-and-after study in the UK found that moving gully pots 10 cm away from the kerb decreased the number of great crested newts that fell in by 80%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F782https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F782Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:45:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities. ‘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%2F965https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F965Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:22:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design of dredges Six studies examined the effects of modifying the design of dredges on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal) and two were in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch overall composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Irish Sea found that a new design of scallop dredge caught a similar species composition of unwanted catch to a traditional dredge. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Irish Sea found that a new dredge design damaged or killed fewer invertebrates left in the sediment tracks following dredging. The other found no difference in total invertebrate abundance or biomass living in or on the sediment tracks following fishing with two dredge designs. Unwanted catch overall abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that a modified or a new design of bivalve dredge caught less unwanted catch compared to traditional unmodified dredges. Unwanted catch condition (6 studies): Six controlled studies (one replicated and paired, four replicated) in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that new or modified bivalve dredges damaged or killed similar proportions of unwanted catch (retained and/or escaped) compared to traditional or unmodified designs, three of which also found that they did not reduce the proportion of damaged or dead unwanted crabs (retained and/or escaped). OTHER (1 study) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Irish Sea found that a new dredge design caught a similar amount of commercially targeted queen scallops compared to a traditional dredge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2119https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2119Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:59:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2128Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:24:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/prawn W-trawl net One study examined the effects of modifying the design/attachments of a W-trawl net used in shrimp/prawn fisheries on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate. The study was in Moreton Bay (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught less non-commercial unwanted catch of crustaceans compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. OTHERS (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught lower amounts of the commercially targeted prawn species compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:00:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design of traps Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study took place in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), and one in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean found that the amount of combined unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish varied with the type of trap design used and the area. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that plastic traps caught some legal-size commercially targeted lobsters while collapsible traps caught none. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2143Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the position of traps Two studies examined the effects of modifying the position of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Varangerfjord (Norway), the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (Spain). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic found that semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted catch species compared to standard bottom traps. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted invertebrates compared to standard bottom traps. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught similar amounts (abundance and biomass) of commercially targeted species as standard bottom traps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify harvest methods of macroalgae We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying harvest methods of macroalgae on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2151https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2151Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:22:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify traps used in the control/eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammal One study evaluated the effects of modifying traps used in the control or eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying traps used for catching non-native mammals reduced moderate but not severe injuries among incidentally captured San Nicolas Island foxes. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:30:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2599Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:16:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:19:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify longline configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying longline configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Norwegian Sea (Norway) and Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). Two were global reviews. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One global review found that survival of unwanted sharks and rays at retrieval of longline gear was higher on nylon hook attachment lines instead of wire for two of three species and lower for one. One replicated, controlled study in the Atlantic Ocean found that survival of unwanted sharks caught on tuna longlines was reduced with nylon hook lines compared to wire. BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic Ocean and one of two reviews of worldwide longline fisheries found that modifying longline configuration (increasing the lead weight on mid-water longlines to increase the sinking rate or using nylon instead of wire hook attachments) reduced the catches of unwanted sharks and/or rays compared to standard longlines. One review found that longline modifications reduced unwanted shark/ray catches in one of two cases. The other study found that modified longlines did not reduce catches of undersized haddock compared to standard longlines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2699Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:42:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gillnet or entangling (trammel/tangle) net configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying gillnet or entangling (trammel or tangle) net configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Adriatic Sea (Italy), and one study was in two estuaries in North Carolina (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (one controlled, two paired and controlled) in the Gulf of Maine, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea and estuaries in the USA, found that modifications to the configuration of gillnets, including reduced height, increased tension twine diameter and mesh size and orientation, reduced the unwanted catch of cod in one of two net designs, discarded fish of commercial and non-commercial species, and the discards of non-commercial, but not commercial species (fish and invertebrates), compared to conventional configurations. The other study found that gillnet modification did not typically reduce unwanted shark catches compared to unmodified gillnets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2701Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:55:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing trap/pot configuration Twenty-three studies examined the effects of modifying fishing trap or pot configuration on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA, Brazil, Canary Islands, Canada). Three studies were in each of the Bothnian Sea (Sweden), the Baltic Sea (Poland, Sweden), the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (Kenya, South Africa). One study was in each of the Kattegat (Denmark), the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), the Adriatic Sea (Italy), the Southern Ocean (Australia), the Pacific Ocean (Canada) and the Barents Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Bothnian Sea found that survival of small herring escaped from a pontoon fish trap through a size-sorting grid was similar to trap-caught herring that did not pass through a grid. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (22 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (20 studies): Sixteen of 20 replicated studies (11 controlled, one randomized, paired and controlled, one randomized and controlled, two paired and controlled and one randomized) and one before-and-after study in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Southern Ocean, Tasman Sea, Adriatic Sea, Bothnian Sea, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, the Kattegat and the Barents Sea, found that modifications to trap configuration (various, including using a different trap type, increased mesh size and fitting an escape device) reduced the unwanted (undersized, discarded or non-commercial target) catches of fish (overall, or all of multiple study species), brown trout, black sea bass, herring, bluethroat wrasse and leatherjacket, cod, protected rockfishes, whitefish, black sea bass, American eel and winter flounder, sharks/rays and of salmon and rainbow trout in one of two cases, compared to unmodified conventional traps or traps of other designs. One of these also found that the number of unwanted species (fish and invertebrates) was lower in modified traps. Three other studies, found that trap modification or type had no effect on unwanted catches of white croaker, non-commercial fish or undersized Atlantic cod, and non-target haddock catches were increased. However, one of these also reported that traps (creels) did not catch high proportions of immature fish, unlike bottom trawls. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (two controlled and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Baltic Sea, Tasman Sea, Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean found that traps or pots modified with a square mesh escape window or larger mesh sizes improved the size-selectivity of Atlantic cod, black sea bass and most fish species compared to smaller mesh and/or standard gear. The other found that increasing mesh size of a trap escape panel had no effect on size-selectivity of panga. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:32:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl gear (mixed measures) Nineteen studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl gear on marine fish populations. Seven studies were in the Clarence River estuary (Australia), three studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Turkey) and North Sea (UK), two studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one study was in each of the South Pacific Ocean, the Skagerrak and Baltic Sea (Denmark/Sweden), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (16 studies): Twelve of 16 replicated studies (seven paired and controlled, five controlled, and two paired) in the Clarence River estuary, South Pacific Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and the Coral Sea, found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the trawl wires, number of nets, codend number, footrope configuration, front trawl body panels, codend netting layers, spreading mechanism, method of weaving, knot orientation or using a new overall trawl design, resulted in reduced unwanted catches of non-target and/or discarded fish species or sizes, and of all sizes of four of seven commercial species, compared to standard unmodified trawl gear or other trawl designs. One of these also found increased catch rate of one commercial species and for another two species the effect varied with fish size. Two studies found that modified trawl gear reduced the unwanted catch of only a small proportion of the number of individual fish species caught compared to other trawl configurations, and also that unwanted fish catches varied between day/night. One study found that different trawl configurations had mixed effects on the numbers and sizes of non-target fish catch. The other study found no reduction in catches of discarded finfish between a modified and standard trawl codend. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (5 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Mediterranean Sea found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the length of the extension piece, the codend strengthening bag, the method of weaving, the number of codend layers and overall design improved the size-selectivity for unwanted (non-target/discarded) fish species or sizes, and annular seabream in one of two cases, compared to unmodified standard trawl gear or other design configurations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:29:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl doors Three studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl doors on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea, one in the Clarence Estuary and one in Lake Wooloweyah (all in Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Tasman Sea, the Clarence Estuary and Lake Wooloweyah found that modified or different designs of trawl doors caught similar amounts of unwanted fish overall, compared to conventional door types. However, one study found fewer of one of five individual unwanted fish species were caught with modified doors. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:41:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the configuration of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net Ten studies examined the effects of modifying the configuration (position/size and increased mesh size) of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Four studies were in the Baltic Sea (Sweden/Poland). Two studies were in each of the North Sea (UK), the Irish Sea (UK) and the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Northern Europe). One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that modifying the position of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net had no effect on the survival rate of cod. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (9 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Three of five replicated, paired studies (one controlled) in the Irish Sea, Atlantic Ocean and Kattegat-Skagerrak found that modifying the position or mesh size of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net reduced the unwanted catches of whiting in one of two cases, haddock and whiting, and boarfish, but caught similar amounts of horse mackerel and blue whiting. The other studies found that catches of unwanted cod or other fish were not reduced. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that modifying the position and/or size of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net improved size-selectivity of haddock and whiting. One of these studies also found that increasing the mesh size of the panel had no effect on size-selectivity for haddock. The other two studies found that size-selectivity was similar for cod compared to standard trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2717Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:46:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify logging practices in watershed to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of modifying logging practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3170Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:35:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify livestock farming practices in watershed to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of modifying livestock farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3171Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:38:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify grazing regime: Grassland & shrubland Four studies evaluated the effects of modifying grazing regimes in grassland and shrubland on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated site comparison study in the USA found that sites with different grazing intensities had similar reptile diversity. One replicated, site-comparison, paired sites study in Australia found no clear effects of modifying grazing intensities on reptile species richness. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that areas that were lightly grazed or unmanaged had lower reptile species richness than areas that were heavily grazed in combination with burning. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one site comparison, paired sites study) in the USA and Australia found that plots with lighter grazing had higher lizard abundance than those with heavier grazing in four of five vegetation types. The other study found that the abundance of individual reptile species or species groups remained similar at different grazing intensities. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that survival of Texas horned lizards was higher in moderately grazed than heavily grazed sites. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that light grazing or heavy grazing and burning had mixed effects on the reptile species that used those areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3490Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:22:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify grazing regime: Forest, open woodland & savanna Seven studies evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Six studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated site comparison study in the USA found that sites with different grazing intensities had similar reptile diversity. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Australia found that farms with rotational grazing did not have higher reptile species richness than farms with continuous grazing. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that following replanting of native vegetation, ungrazed or occasionally grazed plots had higher reptile species richness than plots that were continuously grazed. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): One of three replicated studies (including one randomized, before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that areas with lighter grazing had higher lizard abundance than those with heavier grazing. The other two studies found that different grazing regimes had mixed effects on the abundance of lizards and four-clawed geckos and inland snake-eyed skinks. Two paired, site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Australia found that sites with rotational grazing had similar reptile abundance as sites with continuous grazing. Occupancy/range (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that different grazing regimes had mixed effects on local colonization and extinction events of six lizard species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Australia found that jacky dragons were found in sheep-grazed paddocks more frequently than in cattle-grazed paddocks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3492Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:38:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify grazing regime: Wetland One study evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes in wetlands on reptile populations. This study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One controlled before-and-after study in France found that moderate density autumn–winter grazing and autumn–spring marsh flooding resulted in higher abundance of European pond turtles than high density spring–summer grazing and winter–spring marsh flooding or low year-round grazing and flooding. Condition (1 study): One controlled before-and-after study in France found that high-density spring–summer grazing resulted in fewer incidences of trampling compared to moderate-density autumn–winter grazing or low-density year-round grazing. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3496https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3496Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:17:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify number of hooks between floats on longlines One study evaluated the effects of modifying the number of hooks between floats on longlines on reptile populations. This study was in the Atlantic and North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found that having fewer hooks between floats did not reduce turtle by-catch in the Pacific but had mixed effects in the Atlantic depending on the species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3580Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:25:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify mesh sizes used in fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying mesh sizes used in fishing gear. ‘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%2F3608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3608Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:40:41 +0000