Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage tillage practices We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing tillage practices 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%2F3488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3488Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:43:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage crop diversity We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing crop diversity 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%2F3489https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3489Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:01:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit heavy vehicle use We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting heavy vehicle use 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%2F3493https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3493Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:43:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave/maintain/restore strips of undisturbed habitat between solar arrays We found no studies that evaluated the effects of leaving/maintaining/restoring strips of undisturbed habitat between solar arrays 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%2F3494https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3494Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:07:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit or exclude off-road vehicle use Two studies evaluated the effects of limiting or excluding off-road vehicle use on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (1 studies): One replicated, site comparison study found that restricting access of off-road vehicles and sheep had mixed effects on lizard species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies (including one randomized study) in the USA found that areas where off-road vehicles were completely excluded using fencing that also excluded livestock grazing had higher densities of Agassiz’s desert tortoises compared to areas with some restrictions or no restrictions. The other study found that restricting off-road vehicle and sheep access had mixed effects on lizard abundance. Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that in areas where off-road vehicles were completely excluded, death rates of Agassiz’s desert tortoises were lower than in areas with some restrictions or no restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3502https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3502Mon, 06 Dec 2021 17:44:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit road construction in important habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting road construction in important habitats 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%2F3506https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3506Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:00:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit vessel numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting vessel numbers 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%2F3529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3529Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:37:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches on farmland 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%2F3530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3530Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:39:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit vessel speeds Three studies evaluated the effects of limiting vessel speeds on reptiles. One study was in each of Australia, Costa Rica and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found that in waterways with enforced speed limits, fewer spectacled caiman were found dead with boat-related injuries compared to waterways with no speed limits. One replicated study in the USA found that vessels travelling at lower speeds caused fewer catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells, though vessels with jet motors caused no catastrophic injuries at any speed tested. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found that in waterways with enforced speed limits, fewer spectacled caiman were found with boat-related injuries compared to waterways with no speed limits. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that green turtles were more likely to flee from vessels travelling at lower speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3531https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3531Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:40:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit or prohibit specific fishing methods One study evaluated the effects of limiting or prohibiting specific fishing methods on reptile populations. This study was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that in areas where a fishing agreement was implemented that involved limiting the use of gill nets along with a wider suit of measures had more river turtles than areas that did not implement the agreement. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3546https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3546Wed, 08 Dec 2021 09:26:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the number of fishing vessels or fishing days in an area We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of limiting the number of fishing vessels or fishing days in an area. ‘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%2F3550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3550Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:09:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the length of fishing gear or density of traps in an area We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of limiting the length of fishing gear or density of traps in an area. ‘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%2F3551https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3551Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:11:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce legislation to control the use of hazardous substances We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing legislation to control the use of hazardous substances. ‘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%2F3560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3560Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:46:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit dumping of garbage and other solid waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting dumping of garbage and other solid 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%2F3563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3563Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:51:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce and enforce water quality regulations for aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing and enforcing water quality regulations for aquaculture systems. ‘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%2F3581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3581Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:26:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Involve fishers in designing and trialling new fishing gear types to encourage uptake of gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of involving fishers in designing and trialling new fishing gear types to encourage uptake of gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles. ‘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%2F3617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3617Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:27:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce fishing gear exchange programs to encourage fishers to use gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing fishing gear exchange programs to encourage fishers to use gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles. ‘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%2F3620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3620Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:30:36 +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: 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: 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: Keep domestic cats indoors at times when reptiles are most active We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of keeping domestic cats indoors at times when reptiles are most active. ‘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%2F3684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3684Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:51:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leash or restrict domestic dog movements in reptile habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of leashing or restricting domestic dog movements in 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%2F3685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3685Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:07:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect reptile species Six studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting reptile species on their populations. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one was in each of the USA, Australia, the Seychelles and Cape Verde. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two studies (including one replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that waterbodies where turtle harvesting was prohibited had a similar abundance of red-eared sliders and Texas spiny softshell turtles compared to unprotected waterbodies. The other study found that following legal protection and harvest regulation, the density of saltwater crocodile populations increased. Reproductive success (1 studies): One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that following legal protection of both green turtles and their habitat, nesting activity increased. Condition (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that in areas with legal protection and/or harvest regulation, Texas spiny softshell turtles and saltwater crocodiles were larger than in areas with no protection or before protection began. One study also found that female red-eared sliders were larger, but males were a similar size in protected compared to unprotected waterbodies. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 studies) Human behaviour change (3 studies): Two reviews in the Netherlands found that despite legislation protecting reptiles and their habitat, only one of four development projects completed their habitat compensation requirements or that compensatory slow worm habitat was not completed in time. Both studies also found that monitoring data was not available or that the success of a slow worm mitigation translocation could not be assessed. One replicated, before-and-after study in Cape Verde reported that following legal protections combined with public awareness campaigns, self-reported harvesting, selling and purchasing of sea turtles and turtle products decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3705https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3705Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:32:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain wild-caught, gravid females in captivity during gestation Seven studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of maintaining wild-caught, gravid females in captivity during gestation. Two studies were in the USA and New Zealand and one was in each of Japan, Iran and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Reproductive success (7 studies): Five replicated studies in the USA, Japan, Iran and Mexico found that varying numbers of wild-caught snakes and lizards gave birth to live young or laid eggs that hatched successfully in captivity. One study also found that eggs laid in artificial nest chambers had higher hatching success than those laid outside of the chambers. One study in New Zealand found mixed effects of providing different basking conditions on the number of McCann’s skinks and common geckos that gave birth successfully. One controlled study in New Zealand found that McCann’s skinks in captivity that were treated for mites completed pregnancy more often and produced more viable offspring compared to skinks not treated. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3766Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:16:10 +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