Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release accidentally caught (‘bycatch’) reptiles Three studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of releasing accidentally caught reptiles. One study was in each of the Caribbean Sea, Costa Rica and the Republic of Korea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated study in the Caribbean Sea found that from a released group of green turtles that included some accidentally caught and some head-started individuals, some survived for at least several months in the wild. One replicated study in the Republic of Korea found that green turtles caught in pound nets all survived for at least two weeks to a year after release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica found that the behaviour of longline-caught sea turtles following release was broadly similar to free-swimming turtles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3624Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:37:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests 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. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) 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. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) 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. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3627Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:43:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change the colour (spectral composition) of lighting Three studies evaluated the effects of changing the colour (spectral composition) of lighting on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Australia found that yellow-tinted incandescent lighting did not affect the seaward orientation of loggerhead turtle hatchlings, whereas four other types of lighting did, and that hatchlings were disoriented in fewer trials by red lighting than by amber lighting. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found in laboratory trials that filtering out high wavelengths did not prevent loggerhead or green turtles crawling towards light sources. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3628https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3628Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:43:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees One study evaluated the effects of coppicing trees on reptile populations. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that no slow worms or common lizards were found in coppiced areas of woodland, whereas they were found in open areas maintained by vegetation cutting. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3629https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3629Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:25:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvest 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%2F3630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3630Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:28:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave standing/deadwood snags in forests Two studies evaluated the effects of leaving standing/deadwood snags in forests on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding snags and woody debris had mixed effects on reptile diversity and species richness when compared to not manipulating debris or removing debris. The other study found that increasing standing coarse woody debris had no effect on reptile diversity and species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding snags and woody debris had mixed effects on reptile abundance when compared to not manipulating debris or removing debris. The other study found that increasing standing coarse woody debris had no effect on reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3631Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave woody debris in forests after logging Six studies evaluated the effects of leaving woody debris in forests after logging on reptile populations. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect the richness of reptile species, or immigrating reptiles. The other study found that areas where woody debris was left in place had higher reptile species richness than areas where debris was cleared and burned. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect reptile species diversity or overall reptile and amphibian species diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four of five studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect the abundance of reptiles, snakes, snakes and lizards or immigrating reptiles. The other study found that areas where woody debris was left in place had higher reptile abundance than areas where debris was cleared and burned. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3632Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:36:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use smaller machinery to log forests We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using smaller machinery to log forests 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%2F3633https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3633Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:48:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting 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%2F3634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3634Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:49:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of harvesting groups of trees instead of clearcutting 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%2F3635https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3635Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:51:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting Two studies evaluated the effects of shelterwood harvesting on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that shelterwood harvesting had mixed effects on reptile species richness compared to areas with no management. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the USA found that areas with shelterwood harvesting had a lower abundance of juvenile eastern box turtles than clearcut areas. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that shelterwood harvesting had mixed effects on reptile abundance compared to areas with no management. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3636Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:52:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective logging Three studies evaluated the effects of using selective logging in forests on reptile populations. One study was in each of Brazil, the USA and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found that areas with low intensity selective logging tended to have similar reptile species richness compared to areas with high intensity selective logging. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study) in Brazil and the USA found that selective logging intensity had mixed effects on the abundance of three lizard species. The other study found that areas with selective logging had similar reptile abundance compared to areas with combined clearcutting and thinning. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3637Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:57:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reseed logged forest One study evaluated the effects of reseeding logged forest on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) 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. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) 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. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3638Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:04:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose noise limits in proximity to reptile habitats and routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of imposing noise limits in proximity to reptile habitats and routes. ‘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%2F3639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3639Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:06:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install sound barriers in proximity to reptile habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing sound barriers in proximity to reptile habitats. ‘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%2F3640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3640Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:09:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial shade for individuals Two studies evaluated the effects of providing artificial shade for individuals on reptile populations. One study was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that shaded, artificial rocky outcrops were used less often than unshaded ones by velvet geckos. One study in Canada found that coverboards were used by northern pacific rattlesnakes in the year they were installed, but not a decade later. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3641Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:17:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance. This study was in Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Turkey found that in an area with signs where sea turtle nests were fenced, nests had higher hatching success than nests from areas with no fencing or signs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3642Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:26:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial shade for nests or nesting sites Four studies evaluated the effects of providing artificial shade for nests or nesting sites on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Panama, and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Reproductive success (3 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Panama and Australia found that shaded leatherback turtles nests had higher hatching success than unshaded nests. The other study found that shaded and unshaded loggerhead turtle nests had similar hatching success. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that relocating diamondback terrapin nests to artificial nest mounds and providing shade had mixed effects on hatchling success. Condition (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Panama and Australia found that greater shade cover resulted in smaller hatchlings for leatherback turtles. The other study found that shading loggerhead turtle nests had mixed effects on hatchling size and crawl speed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Offspring sex ratio (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one before-and-after study) in Panama and the USA found that shading leatherback turtle nests resulted in fewer female hatchlings compared to unshaded nests. The other study found that shaded and unshaded Agassiz’s desert tortoise nests produced a similar sex ratio of hatchlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3643Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:28:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce and enforce regulations for reptile watching tours We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing and enforcing regulations for reptile watching tours. ‘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%2F3644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3644Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:30:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use nest covers to protect against human disturbance Two studies evaluated the effects of using nest covers to protect against human disturbance on reptiles. One study was in the USA and one was in Greece. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired study) in the USA and Greece found that loggerhead turtle nests that were covered with cages had similar hatching success compared to nests that were not covered. The other study found mixed effects of cages on hatching success of loggerhead turtle nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3645Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:32:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna Twenty-eight studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Twenty-four studies were in the USA, three were in Australia and one was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that in areas with prescribed burning, reptile assemblages became similar to more pristine areas that had historically experienced frequent fires. Richness/diversity (11 studies): Seven studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that burned areas had similar reptile species richness compared to unburned areas. One of the studies also found that burned areas had higher reptile diversity than unburned areas. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Australia and the USA found that reptile species richness remained similar with time since burning. One of two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that burned areas had higher combined reptile and amphibian species richness than unburned areas. The other study found that burned areas had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness and diversity compared to unburned areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (26 STUDIES) Abundance (23 studies): Nine of 21 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that burning had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles, six-lined racerunners and western yellow-bellied racer snakes. Six studies found that burned areas had a higher abundance of reptiles, lizards, black racer snakes and more active gopher tortoise burrows compared to unburned areas. The other six studies found that burned areas had a similar abundance of reptiles, lizards and gopher tortoise burrows compared to unburned areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that reptile abundance increased with time since burning. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that burning in different seasons had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles. Survival (2 study): One of two studies (one site comparison and one controlled study) in the USA and Brazil found that Texas horned lizard survival was similar in burned and unburned areas. The other study found that burning had mixed effects on survival of an endemic lizard species. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that eastern fence lizards in recently burned areas ran faster than those from areas that were burned less recently or were unburned. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before and-after study in the USA found that burning affected overwintering habitat use by gopher tortoises. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that in burned areas, black racer snakes had higher surface activity than in unburned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3646Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:38:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting habitat along elevational gradients 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%2F3647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3647Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:47:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce cumulative heating effects of urban development by planting vegetation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the cumulative heating effects of urban development by planting vegetation 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%2F3648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3648Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:49:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use irrigation systems Two studies evaluated the effects of using irrigation systems on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that hatching success of Agassiz’s desert tortoises was similar in irrigated and non-irrigated enclosures. Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that survival of juvenile Agassiz’s desert tortoises was similar in irrigated and non-irrigated enclosures. Condition (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired study) in the USA found that irrigating nests had mixed effects on growth of Agassiz’s desert tortoises and loggerhead turtles. One of the studies also found that loggerhead turtle hatchlings from nests that were irrigated were larger than those from non-irrigated nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3649https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3649Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:53:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning: Grassland & shrubland Fourteen studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in grassland and shrubland on reptile populations. Seven studies were in the USA, four were in Australia and one was in each of South Africa, Argentina and France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that reptile species composition was different before and immediately after burning in three grass types and remained different after vegetation grew back in one of three grass types. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in South Africa, Argentina and the USA found that areas with annual burning had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to unburned areas or that richness was similar across areas with a range of burn frequencies. The other study found that burned areas had higher reptile species richness than unburned areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that areas burned 1–4 years earlier had lower reptile species richness than areas burned 11–15 years earlier. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas with different burn frequencies had similar reptile species richness and diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Three of six studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA and Argentina found that burned areas had a similar abundance of lizards, snakes and lizards and combined reptiles and amphibians compared to unburned areas. Two studies found that burning had mixed effects on the abundance of different reptile species and western yellow-bellied racer snakes.The other study found that burned areas had more eastern massasauga rattlesnakes than unburned areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that areas burned 1–4 years earlier had a lower abundance of reptiles than areas burned 11–15 years earlier. One controlled before-and-after study in the USA found that a burned area had a similar number of four snake species compared to when the area was managed by mowing. One site comparison study in France found that one reptile species was less abundant in areas managed by burning than areas grazed by sheep, whereas the abundance of five other species was similar in all areas. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that immediately after burning, the abundance of reptiles was lower than before burning, but was similar after vegetation grew back. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in Australia found that small-scale patch burning was associated with increased abundance of sand goanna burrows. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some rocky outcrops that were burned were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3651Thu, 09 Dec 2021 17:11:07 +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