Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use bindings to keep trawl nets closed until they have sunk below the water surface We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using bindings to keep trawl nets closed until they have sunk below the water surface. ‘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%2F3610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3610Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:45:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use dyed bait Two studies evaluated the effects of using dyed bait on reptile populations. One study was in Costa Rica and one was in the North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One randomized, paired, controlled study in Costa Rica found that loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles showed mixed preferences for dyed compared to non-dyed bait in captive trials. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): Two paired studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Costa Rica and the North Pacific found that hooks with dyed bait caught a similar number of olive ridley and green turtles and loggerhead turtles compared to hooks with non-dyed bait. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3611https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3611Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:46:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Sea turtles Nine studies evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on sea turtle populations. Three studies were in each of the Atlantic and Pacific, and one was in each of the Atlantic and north Pacific, the Gulf of Garbes (Tunisia) and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the Southern Atlantic found that the percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that survived being caught by fish-baited or squid-baited hooks or fish-baited circle hooks and squid-baited J-hooks was similar. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks deeply hooked fewer leatherback and hard-shell turtles compared to squid-baited J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled study in Italy found that loggerhead turtles in a captive setting were less likely to bite at fish bait than squid bait. The study also found that smaller turtles were more likely to bite at mackerel bait and larger turtles at squid bait. OTHER (8 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (8 studies): Four of five studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled study) in the North Pacific, Eastern Pacific, Atlantic and Atlantic and North Pacific found that fish-baited hooks caught fewer sea turtles or were swallowed by fewer olive ridley turtles than squid baited hooks. One study also found that fish bait in combination with larger circle hooks lead to the highest percentage of external hookings. The other study found mixed effects of using fish or squid-baited hooks on the unwanted catch of hard-shell and leatherback turtles. One replicated, controlled study in the north-western Atlantic Ocean found that fish-baited J-hooks caught fewer sea turtles compared to squid-baited hooks. The study also found that unwanted catch was more similar for fish-baited and squid-baited circle hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles compared to compared to squid-baited J-hooks. One replicated study in the Gulf of Garbes found that hooks baited with stingray caught fewer loggerhead turtles compared to fish-baited hooks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:02:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Two studies evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtles. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that a crab pot with mackerel bait caught more diamondback terrapins than when chicken bait or no bait was used. One replicated, paired study in the USA found that hoop nets with soap bait caught fewer turtles than nets with cheese bait. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3613Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:21:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Snakes & lizards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on snake and lizard 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%2F3614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3614Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:22:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different bait type 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%2F3615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3615Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:23:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change hook baiting technique One study evaluated the effects of changing the hook baiting technique on reptile populations. 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 captive loggerhead turtles were more likely to attempt to swallow thread-baited than single-baited hooks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3616https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3616Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:24:48 +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: Use barriers or vegetation to reduce artificial light One study evaluated the effects of using barriers or vegetation to reduce artificial light on reptile populations. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in India1 found that when casuarina plantations were in close proximity (50 m) to the high tide line, more olive ridley turtle hatchlings crawled towards the sea compared to when plantations were 500 m from the high tide line, or when there was high intensity light and no barrier. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3618Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:28:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Finance low interest loans to convert to fishing gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of financing low interest loans to convert to fishing 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%2F3619https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3619Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:29:15 +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: Establish handling and release procedures for accidentally captured or entangled (‘bycatch’) reptiles One study evaluated the effects on reptiles of establishing handling and release procedures for accidentally captured or entangled reptiles. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Canada in a captive setting found that recovery of painted turtles after a long period of being held underwater was similar when turtles recovered out of the water or in the water. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3621https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3621Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:31:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing gear to reduce reptile mortality in the event of unwanted catch One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using modified gear to reduce reptile mortality in the event of unwanted catch. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that few diamondback terrapins died in crab pots fitted with mesh chimneys. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3622https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3622Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:34:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting Four studies evaluated the effects of using low intensity lighting on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA1-3 and one was in Malaysia4. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the USA1 found that reducing the intensity of light sources did not improve loggerhead turtle hatchling seaward orientation. One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia4 found that green turtle hatchlings in low and moderate ambient artificial light took more direct crawl routes to the sea than hatchlings released in high ambient artificial light. One replicated, controlled study in the USA3 found that in laboratory trials, loggerhead and green turtle hatchlings showed reduced preference for lower intensity light sources. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA2 found mixed effects of embedding streetlights in the road on seaward orientation of loggerhead turtle hatchlings compared to overhead lighting depending on shading by shrubs and weather and lunar phase. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3623Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:34:46 +0000Collected 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 +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