Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease livestock grazing: Grassland & shrubland Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of ceasing livestock grazing in grassland and shrubland on reptile populations. Eight studies were in the USA, three were in Australia, two were in the UK and one was in each of New Zealand and Egypt. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (6 studies): Four of six studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that ungrazed and grazed areas had similar reptile species richness, combined reptile and amphibian or reptile and small mammal species richness. One study found that ungrazed sites had higher species richness than grazed sites. The other study found that fencing areas to exclude grazers had mixed effects on lizard species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Abundance (15 studies): Seven of 14 studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA, New Zealand, Australia, Egypt and the UK found that ceasing grazing (in one case after eradicating invasive mice3 and in one case after burning11) had mixed effects on reptile or lizard abundance. Four studies found that ungrazed areas had a higher abundance of lizards or smooth snakes than grazed areas. The other three studies found that ungrazed and grazed areas had a similar abundance of reptiles, reptiles and small mammals or Texas tortoises. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that areas with fencing that excluded both grazing and recreational vehicle use had more Agassiz’s desert tortoises than areas with less restrictions on grazing or vehicle use. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that areas with fencing that excluded grazing and recreational vehicle use had lower death rates of Agassiz’s desert tortoises than areas with less restrictions on grazing or vehicle use. The other study found that in areas where grazing was ceased and where grazing was rotational, survival of Texas tortoises was similar. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that in areas where grazing was ceased and where grazing was rotational, size and growth of Texas tortoises was similar. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in Egypt found that in areas protected from grazing with fences, Be’er Sheva fringe-fingered lizards spent less time moving and were observed further away from the nearest vegetation compared to in areas with grazing and low-impact watermelon farming. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3498Mon, 06 Dec 2021 13:47:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease livestock grazing: Forest, open woodland & savanna Five studies evaluated the effects of ceasing livestock grazing in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Two studies were in each of Argentina and Australia and one was in Mexico1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (4 studies): Three of four studies (including two replicated, site-comparison studies) in Mexico, Argentina and Australia found that ungrazed and grazed areas, in one case with burning, had similar reptile species richness and diversity. The other study found that in areas where livestock grazing was stopped, combined reptile and small mammal species richness increased more than in areas with grazing. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of five studies (including three replicated, site comparison studies) in Mexico, Argentina and Australia found that ungrazed areas had a higher abundance of reptiles and lizards than grazed areas. Two studies found that ungrazed areas, in one case with burning, had similar overall reptile or reptile and small mammal abundance compared to grazed areas. The other study found that grazing had mixed effects on reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3511https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3511Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:43:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease livestock grazing: Wetland Two studies evaluated the effects of ceasing livestock grazing in wetlands on reptile populations. One study was in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that ungrazed sites had fewer bog turtles than grazed sites. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that ungrazed areas had similar overall reptile and amphibian abundance compared to that were grazed, burned or grazed and burned (to remove invasive non-native para grass). The study also found that unmanaged areas (no grazing or burning) had a higher abundance of one skink species than areas with grazing and/or burning. Occupancy/range (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that juvenile box turtles were present less frequently in ungrazed sites compared to grazed sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3512Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:58:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Commercially breed reptiles to reduce pressure on wild populations One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of commercially breeding reptiles to reduce pressure on wild populations. This study was in the Cayman Islands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)   OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One study in the Cayman Islands found that where there was a commercial turtle farm, consumption and purchase of wild turtle products was rare, though some residents still showed a preference for wild turtle meat. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3539https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3539Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:45:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing. ‘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%2F3543https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3543Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:21:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit commercial fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting commercial fishing. ‘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%2F3544https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3544Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:22:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit discharge of waste effluents overboard from vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting discharge of waste effluents overboard from vessels. ‘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%2F3572https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3572Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:13:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Contain or recover oil following spills We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of containing or recovering oil following spills. ‘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%2F3574https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3574Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:15:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of mining waste (tailings) at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of mining waste (tailings) at sea or in rivers. ‘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%2F3592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3592Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:21:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers. ‘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%2F3593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3593Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:22:48 +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: 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: Create fire breaks One study evaluated the effects of creating fire breaks on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fire suppression measures combined with fences to exclude predators, reptile abundance increased over time. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3658https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3658Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:45:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control ectoparasites in wild reptile populations One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of controlling ectoparasites in wild reptile populations. This study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled study in New Zealand found that McCann’s skinks treated for mites had more successful pregnancies and produced more viable offspring than untreated skinks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3704Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:06:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear or open patches in forests Six studies evaluated the effects of removing canopy to create clearings on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Sweden, Australia, the UK and France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that rocky outcrops where trees were removed had higher reptile species richness than overgrown outcrops, and similar richness to outcrops that were naturally sun exposed. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies) in Sweden, Australia, the UK and the USA found that after clearings and sand patches were created, sand lizard colonized, abundance then declined, but then increased once more, larger clearings were created. One study found that more slow worms and common lizards were found in open areas of woodland maintained by vegetation cutting compared to in coppiced areas. One study found that areas with reduced canopy had more eastern Massassauga rattlesnakes in the first three years after cutting than uncut areas, but similar numbers after four years. The other study found that removing trees from rocky outcrops had mixed effects on reptile abundance. Occupancy (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in France found that forest areas where the canopy had been opened up were more likely to be occupied by asper vipers than areas with closed canopy. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that clearing a patch of canopy in a forest did not affect spotted turtle home range size. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3715https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3715Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:01:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites on reptile populations. Three studies were in each of the UK and Australia, two were in New Zealand and one was in each of the USA, Spain and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that areas with refuge logs had higher reptile species richness than areas without refuges. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that areas with refuge logs had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas without refuges. Reproductive success (1 study): One study in the UK found that after translocating adders to an artificial hibernaculum, there was evidence of successful reproduction. Survival (1 study): One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that in areas with artificial refuges, survival of McCann’s skinks was similar to areas without refuges. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including one replicated, controlled study and one randomized, controlled study) in the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Italy found that artificial refuges were used by reptiles, common lizards, adders, common geckos, species of skinks, and by an ocellated lizard to lay a clutch of eggs. Four of the studies also found that some reptiles showed a preference for refuges with certain designs or construction materials. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3720Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:36:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial burrows Six studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial burrows on reptile populations. Five studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that areas with artificial burrows had more pygmy blue tongue lizards than areas with no artificial burrows Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that female pygmy bluetongue lizards using artificial burrows produced larger offspring than those using natural burrows. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that female pygmy bluetongue lizards using artificial burrows had better body condition than those using natural burrows. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three replicated studies (including one controlled study) in Australia found that artificial burrows were used by resident and translocated pygmy bluetongue lizards. One of the studies also found that pygmy bluetongue lizards preferred artificial burrows with a chamber than burrows with no chamber. One replicated study in the USA found that providing artificial burrows for translocated gopher tortoises resulted in more tortoises settling successfully in the release area. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that translocated pygmy blue tongue lizards used artificial burrows, and supplementary food affected the amount of time they spend in bare ground areasCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3721Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:02:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore ponds Four studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring ponds on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Austria and China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (including one replicated and one before-and-after study) in Austria, the USA and China reported that following the creation of ponds, in one case 30–60 years after pond creation, or restoration of a river island that included creation of ponds grass snakes and sand lizards were found on the island, and ponds were occupied by mangrove salt marsh snakaes, common snapping turtles and midland painted turtles and Chinese alligators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3730https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3730Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:22:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore rock outcrops Five studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring rock outcrops on reptile populations. All five studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that areas restored with artificial rocks had a higher abundance of adult velvet geckos and similar numbers of juveniles compared to unrestored areas. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that in areas restored with artificial rocks, juvenile velvet geckos had higher survival rates than in unrestored areas. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some restored rocky outcrops were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that constructed rock outcrops were used by two snake and six lizard species at least as often as natural outcrops. Two replicated studies (including one randomized study) in Australia found that artificial rock outcrops were used by two lizard and one snake species and six lizard and two snake species. One study also found that unshaded artificial rocks were used more frequently by velvet geckos than shaded ones. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3732https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3732Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:39:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore grasslands Four studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring grasslands on reptile populations. One study was in each of South Africa, China, Australia and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Mongolia found that areas of restored grassland had similar species richness compared to unrestored areas. One replicated, site comparison study in South Africa found that an area of restored grassland had lower species richness than natural grassland in three of four comparisons. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired study) in Mongolia and the USA found that areas of restored grassland had higher lizard abundance than unrestored areas. The other study found that areas of restored grassland had fewer snakes than unrestored areas. One replicated, site comparison study in South Africa found that an area of restored grassland had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to two areas of natural grassland. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some areas of restored grassland and rocky outcrops were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3737https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3737Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:05:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore savannas One study evaluated the effects of creating or restoring savannas on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that reptile species richness was higher following restoration of savanna-like habitat on a golf course. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3739Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:15:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore forests Six studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring forests on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the USA and Australia found that restored and natural riparian forest had similar reptile species richness. The other study found that restored forest areas had higher reptile species richness than remnant forest areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that the type of restoration had mixed effects on reptile species richness in tropical and subtropical areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including two controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Mexico found that areas of restored forest had similar abundances of snakes and six lizard species as unrestored areas. The other study found that restoring forest stands had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that areas with different restoration types had similar reptile abundance in tropical and subtropical areas. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that restored forest areas had higher reptile abundance than remnant forest areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3749https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3749Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:15:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore shrubland One study evaluated the effects of creating or restoring shrubland on reptile populations. This study was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that areas of restored shrubland had similar reptile and amphibian species richness compared to areas that were not restored. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that areas of restored shrubland had a higher abundance of lizards than areas that were not restored. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3751https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3751Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:28:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial nests or nesting sites Nine studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial nests or nesting sites on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one study was in each of the Galápagos, Spain, China, Reunion Island, Canada and Jamaica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Reproductive success (6 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study) on Reunion Island and Jamaica found that the number of Reunion day gecko eggs and Jamaican iguana hatchlings at artificial nesting sites increased over time. One of two replicated, controlled studies in Canada and the USA found that hatching success of eggs from four species of freshwater turtle moved to artificial nest sites was higher than for eggs left in natural sites. The other study found that hatching success of diamondback terrapin nests in artificial nest sites compared to natural sites varied depending on the substrate used. One study in Spain found that eggs laid in an artificial nest by an Iberian wall lizard hatched and those placed in artificial nests had high hatching success. One replicated study in the USA found that fewer diamondback terrapin nests were predated in artificial nesting mounds protected with an electric wire than in mounds with no wire. BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES) Use (8 studies): Four of seven studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the Galápagos, Spain, Reunion Island, Canada, the USA and Jamaica found that artificial nest sites were used by captive Galápagos giant tortoises, Iberian wall lizards, four species of freshwater turtle and diamondback terrapins. Two studies found that use of artificial nest sites increased over time for Reunion day geckos and Jamaican iguanas. The other study found that artificial nest sites were used infrequently by northern map turtles. One study in China found that artificial nesting materials were used by some Chinese alligators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3802Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:04:37 +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