Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining or energy production sites Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining or energy production sites on reptile populations. Nine studies were in Australia, two were in the USA, one was in Spain and one was on Reunion Island. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Community composition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in Austalia and Spain found that restored mining areas hosted different reptile communities than unmined areas. One study found that reptile communities in the oldest restored areas were most similar to unmined areas. The other study found that restored mining areas that were seeded or received topsoil had similar community composition compared to surrounding unmined forests. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that restored mining sites had lower reptile species richness than unmined sites. One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Spain found that after restoration, reptile species richness increased steadily over a six-year period. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored areas supported most of typical reptile species found in the wider habitat. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that in restored mining areas reptiles tended to be less abundant than in unmined areas. The other study found mixed effects of restoration on reptile abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that restored areas that were thinned and burned 10–18 years after restoration began had higher reptile abundance than restored areas that were not thinned and burned. Reproductive success (2 studies): One review in Australia found that one study reported reptiles breeding in restored mining areas. One study on Reunion Island found that four of 34 and eight of 40 artificial egg laying sites in restored mining areas were used by Reunion day geckos nine months and two years after installation respectively. Condition (1 study): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia found that three of three studies indicated that reptile size or condition was similar in restored mines and undisturbed areas. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, site comparison study) in Australia and the USA found that restored mining areas were occupied by up to 14 snake, five turtle and one lizard species, or that generalist reptile species colonized restoration sites more quickly than did specialist species. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Napoleon’s skinks reintroduced to a restored mining site all moved to an unmined forest within one week of release. Behaviour change (1 studies): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia reported that one of one studies indicated that there were changes in behaviour of lizards between restored mines and undisturbed areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3497Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:43:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/maintain road verges as habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining/maintaining road verges as 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%2F3505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3505Tue, 07 Dec 2021 09:57:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or increase leaf litter or other types of mulch Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining or increasing leaf litter or other types of mulch on reptile populations. One study was in Indonesia and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Indonesia found that reptile species richness increased with the addition of leaf litter and decreased following removal of leaf litter and woody debris. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two randomized, controlled studies (one replicated, before-and-after study) in Indonesia and Australia found that the addition of leaf litter or cacao husks resulted in a higher abundance of overall reptiles or skinks. One study also found that removal of leaf litter and woody debris led to a decrease in reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3525Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:12:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set commercial catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting commercial catch quotas. ‘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%2F3548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3548Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:05:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set unwanted catch quotas One study evaluated the effects of setting unwanted catch quotas on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One study in the USA found that following the re-opening of a swordfish long-line fishery with turtle catch limits in place, loggerhead turtle bycatch reached the annual catch limit in two of three years, and when the limit was reached the fishery was closed for the rest of the year. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3549Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:07:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buoys and lines at the sea floor or riverbed when not hauling We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of retaining buoys and lines at the sea floor or riverbed when not hauling. ‘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%2F3555https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3555Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:08:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain offal on fishing vessels instead of discarding overboard We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of retaining offal on fishing vessels instead of discarding overboard. ‘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%2F3556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3556Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:10:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set gillnets perpendicular to the shore We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting gillnets perpendicular to the shore. ‘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%2F3557https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3557Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:11:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set regulatory ban on marine burial of persistent environmental pollutants, including nuclear waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting regulatory bans on marine burial of persistent environmental pollutants, including nuclear waste. ‘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%2F3595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3595Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:25:34 +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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Remove or control non-native/invasive plants Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native/invasive plants on reptile populations. Two studies were in Australia and one was in each of South Africa and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush were sprayed with herbicide had similar reptile species richness compared to unsprayed areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush or para grass were controlled had a similar abundance of reptiles and combined reptiles and amphibians compared to areas with no control. One study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas with invasive control compared to unmanaged areas. The other study found that removing invasive non-native Sahara mustard had mixed effects on the abundance of Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizards and flat-tailed horned lizards. Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that in areas where an invasive plant was removed, nesting activity by Nile crocodiles increased more than in places with no removal. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3697Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:27:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control toxic invasive amphibians (e.g. cane toads, Asian toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling toxic invasive amphibians 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%2F3699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3699Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:52:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore island ecosystems Three studies evaluated the effects of restoring island ecosystems on reptile populations. One study was in each of the Seychelles, the USA and the US Virgin Islands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Occupancy/range (1 study): One study in the US Virgin Islands found that following translocation to a restored island, St. Croix ground lizards expanded their range during the fifth to seventh year after release. Reproductive success (2 studies): One study in the Seychelles found that following a range of interventions carried out to restore an island ecosystem, the number of hawksbill and green turtle nests increased. One replicated study in the USA found that during and after an island was rebuilt, diamondback terrapins continued to nest on the island. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3736https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3736Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:00:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore beaches One study evaluated the effects of restoring beaches on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3752https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3752Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:30:25 +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