Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning: Wetland Two studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in wetlands on reptile populations. One study was in each of the USA and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one replicated, randomized study) in the USA and Australia found mixed effects of using prescribed burning in wetlands on the abundance of western yellow-bellied racer snakes. The other study found that found that burned areas had a similar abundance of reptiles and amphibians compared to unburned areas, but that delicate skinks were less abundant in burned areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3652Thu, 09 Dec 2021 17:44:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting Ten studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting on reptile populations. Eight studies were in the USA and two were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that cutting vegetation prior to burning resulted in reptile assemblages becoming similar to areas with more pristine habitat and a history of frequent fires. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (including three randomized, controlled studies) in Australia and the USA found that areas managed by burning in combination with vegetation cutting had similar reptile species richness compared to either burning only, cutting only or areas that were unmanaged. The other study found that areas of woodland managed by burning and vegetation thinning had higher reptile species richness than unmanaged areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four of nine replicated studies (including five randomized, controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found that areas that were managed by burning in combination with vegetation cutting had a higher abundance of overall reptiles, lizards, eastern fence lizards and five-lined skinks compared to areas that were either only burned or unmanaged. Three studies found a similar abundance of overall reptiles, snakes and turtles compared to either burning only, cutting only or unmanaged. Four studies found mixed effects of burning in combination with vegetation cutting on the abundance of reptiles and six-lined racerunners. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3655https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3655Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:25:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with herbicide application Five studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with herbicide application on reptile populations. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that reptile community composition responded differently to herbicide treatment followed by burning or burning alone when compared to unburned areas or areas of more pristine habitat. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that areas that were burned in combination with herbicide application had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness and diversity compared to areas that were managed by burning or herbicide application alone or left unmanaged. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies) in the USA found mixed effects of burning in combination with herbicide application on the abundance of reptiles and six-lined racerunners. The other study found that areas that were burned in combination with herbicide application had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to areas that were managed by burning or herbicide application alone or left unmanaged. The study also found that the abundance of eastern fence lizards was higher in the first year after burning and herbicide application compared to unmanaged areas, but similar for the next six years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some rocky outcrops that were burned in combination with herbicide application were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3656https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3656Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:07:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with grazing Five studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with grazing on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One of two studies (including one site comparison study and one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in Argentina and the USA found that areas that were burned in combination with grazing had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas not burned or grazed for 3–12 years. The other study found that areas that were burned in combination with grazing had higher species richness than lightly grazed or unmanaged areas and similar richness compared to areas that were burned only. One before-and-after study in the USA found that an area with annual prescribed burning combined with intensive early-season grazing had similar reptile species richness compared to when it was managed by alternate year prescribed burning with season-long grazing. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Australia and Argentina found that that burning in combination with grazing had mixed effects on the abundance of reptile species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that areas where invasive para grass was removed by burning in combination with grazing had similar overall reptile and amphibian abundance compared to areas that were only burned or unmanaged. The study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas that were burned and grazed compared to those that were unmanaged. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3657https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3657Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:27:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create fire breaks One study evaluated the effects of creating fire breaks on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fire suppression measures combined with fences to exclude predators, reptile abundance increased over time. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3658https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3658Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:45:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put out wildfires We found no studies that evaluated the effects of putting out wildfires on reptile populations. ‘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%2F3659https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3659Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:48:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regulate water levels One study evaluated the effects of regulating water levels 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 autumn–spring marsh flooding with moderate levels of grazing in autumn–winter led to higher numbers of European pond turtles than winter–spring flooding with high levels of grazing in spring–summer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3660https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3660Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:51:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: All reptiles (excluding sea turtles) Seventeen studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on reptile populations (excluding sea turtles). Four studies were in the USA, two were in each of Australia and Brazil, and one was in each of Canada, Madagascar, South Africa, Spain, Hong Kong, Argentina, the borders of Zambia and Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of five studies (including two replicated, site comparison studies) in the USA, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan and Mexico found mixed effects of protected areas on reptile species richness and combined reptile and amphibian species richness. The other two studies found that protected areas had higher reptile species richness than unprotected farmland. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Six of 11 studies (including five replicated, site comparison studies) in the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, the border of Zambia and Zimbabwe and Pakistan found that protected areas had a higher abundance of reptiles, tortoises, Nile crocodiles and combined reptiles and amphibians than areas with less or no protection. Four studies found mixed effects of protection on the abundance of reptiles and big-headed turtles. The other study found that water bodies in protected areas had fewer eastern long-necked turtles than those in suburban areas. One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas with community-based management of fishing practices, which included protecting river turtle nesting beaches, had more river turtles than areas that did not manage fishing practices. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that the abundance of different sized radiated tortoises in a protected area was more similar to that of an exploited population than to an unexploited population. Occupancy/range (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that Argentine tortoises were found in one of two protected areas and two of three unprotected areas. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reptile species were still present 20 years after an area was protected. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that in areas with greater protections, survival of Agassiz’s desert tortoises was higher than in areas with less protections. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that roads running through protected areas had more reptile road deaths than roads in unprotected areas. Condition (4 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA, Australia and Hong Kong found that protected areas had larger red-eared sliders and big-headed turtles compared to areas where harvesting was allowed or was thought to be occurring illegally. The other study found that eastern long-necked turtles in protected areas grew slower and were smaller than turtles in suburban areas. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that radiated tortoises in a protected area had similar genetic diversity compared to populations outside of the protected area. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that a protected area was used by common chuckwallas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3661https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3661Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:53:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on sea turtle populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, the Seychelles, Belize and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, there were fewer nesting female leatherback turtles than before protection. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study off the coast of Belize found that in protected areas there were more hawksbill turtles than outside. One site comparison study in the USA found that differences in the abundance of green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles in protected and unprotected areas were mixed. Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, more leatherback turtle hatchlings were produced than before protection. One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that nesting activity by green turtles increased following both habitat and species protection. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:56:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain connectivity between habitat patches Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining connectivity between habitat patches on reptile populations. One study was in Brazil and one was in Madagascar. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forest fragments connected by corridors and isolated forest fragments had similar reptile species composition. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that in an area with hedges connecting different habitat types, reptile communities were more similar across the different habitat types than in an area with no hedges. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forest fragments connected by corridors and isolated forest fragments had similar reptile species richness. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that an area with hedges connecting different habitat types had more unique reptile species than an area without hedges. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forest fragments connected by corridors and isolated forest fragments had a similar abundance of reptiles, including leaf litter lizards. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3663https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3663Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:57:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffer zones around core habitat on reptile populations. ‘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%2F3664https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3664Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:59:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect specific habitat structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting specific habitat structures on reptile populations. ‘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%2F3665https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3665Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:00:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Alter water flow rates One study evaluated the effects of altering water flow rates on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that releasing a large flow of water into a wetland system had mixed effects on relative abundance of eastern long-necked turtles and the number of turtles caught. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that after releasing a large flow of water into a wetland system, body condition of eastern long-necked turtles improved. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3666https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3666Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain dams or water impoundments One study evaluated the effects of maintaining dams or water impoundments on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that after sediment removal, or dam maintenance along with sediment removal, one water impoundment was still used by Sonoran mud turtles and a second was not used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3667https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3667Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:22:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the USA found that an eel ladder was used by common watersnakes in five of eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:24:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or maintain beaches (‘beach nourishment’) Three studies evaluated the effects of restoring or maintaining beaches on reptile populations. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that gopher tortoise densities were higher and numbers occupying burrows similar on constructed sand dunes compared to natural dunes. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two controlled, before-and-after studies in the USA found that one year after adding sand to beaches, nesting activity decreased more for loggerhead turtles, and loggerhead and green turtles compared to on unmodified beaches. Two years after nourishment, both studies found that loggerhead nesting activity had increased, and in one study nesting had returned to pre-nourishment levels. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that burrows on a constructed dune were discovered by gopher tortoises after three months. Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that one year after adding sand to beaches, loggerhead turtles made more non-nesting crawls than on unmodified beaches, but the difference was smaller two years after nourishment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3669Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:30:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Armour shorelines to prevent erosion We found no studies that evaluated the effects of armouring shorelines to prevent erosion on reptile populations. ‘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%2F3670https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3670Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:37:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on sea turtle populations. All four studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that on islands where raccoons and feral pigs or only feral pigs were eradicated, fewer loggerhead and loggerhead and green turtle nests were predated than before predator control began. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that controlling raccoons on short sections of a beach resulted in similar predation of loggerhead turtle nests compared to in sections of the beach with no control. One before-and-after study in the USA found that disruptions to a programme controlling raccoons and armadillos resulted in more predation of loggerhead, leatherback and green turtle nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3671https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3671Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:54:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtle populations. Four studies were in the USA and three were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Reproductive success (7 studies): Six of seven studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Australia and the USA found that in areas with mammal or fire ant control, and in two cases with fencing, fewer tortoise, turtle and terrapin nests were predated compared to areas with no control, or before control began. Two studies also found that predation increased again a year after control or in the second year of control. The other study found that following short-term fox control, a similar number of artificial eastern long-necked turtle nests were predated by foxes compared to before control began. Survival (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study and one randomized study) in Australia and the USA found that in a fenced area with mammal or fire ant control, more gopher tortoise hatchlings survived for one year or at least 150 days compared to fenced areas with no control. The other study found mixed effects of fox control on survival of Murray short-necked turtles and broad-shelled turtles depending on turtle species, age and sex. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fox control, freshwater turtles nested further from the water and nests were more spread out compared to areas with no control, or before control began. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3672Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:10:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Snakes & lizards Twelve studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on snake and lizard populations. Four studies were in New Zealand, two were in each of Australia and the Galápagos, and one was in each of Indonesia, Antigua, Mexico and the Bahamas. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Four of six before-and-after studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in New Zealand, Antigua, Mexico and the Bahamas found that on islands where both Pacific rats and European rabbits, Pacific rats, black rats and cats were eradicated, the abundance of lizards and Antiguan racer snakes. One study found that on an island where black rats were eradicated the number of San Salvador rock iguanas remained similar compared to before eradication. The other study found that eradicating mice had mixed effects on the abundance of lizards. One study also found that lizard abundance on an island with eradication was initially lower than on a predator free island, but after two years was similar or higher. One controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that across areas with fox and cat control or only fox control, gecko and skink numbers were similar to an area with no control, but dragon lizard numbers were lower. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that in areas with fox control sand goanna abundance was higher and there was mixed effects on small lizard abundance compared to in areas with no control. Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Galápagos found that on an island where cats were eradicated the number of offspring of reintroduced Galápagos land iguanas was higher than before cat control began. Survival: (2 studies): One study in New Zealand found that survival of captive-bred Otago skinks released into an enclosure after mouse eradication was higher compared to when skinks were released in the presence of mice. One study in Indonesia reported no mortality of monitor lizards following use of poison baits to control black rats. Condition (2 studies): One of two studies in Indonesia and the Galápagos found that on an island where black rats were controlled, rodenticide was detected in the livers of lava lizards for up to 850 days after its use began. The other study reported no illness in monitor lizards following use of poison baits to control black rats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3673Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:27:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on crocodilian populations. ‘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%2F3674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3674Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:42:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Tuatara One study evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on tuatara populations. This study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that after eradicating Pacific rats the abundance of tuatara was higher on islands where rats were eradicated than on islands where some rats remained, and that the percentage of total tuatara that were juveniles increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3675Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:44:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators by relocating them Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing or controlling predators by relocating them. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that after raccoons were live trapped and relocated, the number of freshwater turtle hatchlings increased for 2–3 years, then decreased again after 3–4 years. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA found that within a fenced area where predators were removed by both relocating and lethal controls, fewer gopher tortoise nests were predated than outside the fenced area where predators were not removed. The other study found that after raccoons were live trapped and relocated, predation of freshwater turtle nests decreased for 2–3 years, then increased again after 3–4 years. Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that within a fenced area where predators were removed by both relocating and lethal controls, survival of gopher tortoise hatchlings was higher than outside the fenced area where predators were not removed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3676https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3676Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:46:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using fencing and/or aerial nets Ten studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing or controlling predators using fencing and/or aerial nets. Five studies were in Australia, two were in each of the USA and New Zealand and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study in Australia found mixed effects of fencing in combination with removal of invasive mammals on reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three of four studies (including one paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study) in Australia found mixed effects of fencing or fencing and removal of invasive mammals on the abundance of reptiles. The other study found that small lizards were more abundant inside fenced areas than outside fenced areas. This study also found mixed effects of fencing on the abundance of skinks and geckos. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fencing the abundance of reptiles increased more over time than in areas with no fencing. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Spain found that in areas with fencing in combination with predator removal, gopher tortoise nests were predated less frequently than in areas with no corrals or fencing with predator removal. The other study found mixed effects of fencing on predation of artificial western Hermann’s tortoise nests. Survival (4 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in New Zealand and the USA found that in areas with fencing in combination with predator removal, more gopher tortoise hatchlings survived for a year than in areas with no fencing or predator removal or survival of captive-bred Otago skinks released into an enclosure was higher when mice had been eradicated compared to when skinks were released in the presence of mice. The other study found that use of predator exclosure fences did not result in increased survival of McCann’s skink compared to areas without exclosures. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that in enclosures designed to exclude small mammals with additional fencing and overhead netting, a similar number of gopher tortoise hatchlings were predated by vertebrate predators compared to in unmodified enclosures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3677Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:52:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for local staff in species identification We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of providing training for local staff in species identification. ‘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%2F3678https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3678Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:56:55 +0000
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue