Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers along roads/railways Seven studies evaluated the effects of installing barriers along roads/railways on reptile populations. Six studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a barrier fence, along with creating artificial nest mounds on the non-road side of the fence, and actively moving turtles off the road, fewer turtles were found dead on the road. One before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a roadside barrier with nest boxes along with a warning sign, fewer female diamondback terrapins were killed while crossing the road compared to before installation. One study in Canada found that dead snakes were found in the vicinity of a barrier fence up to 11 years after it was installed. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a roadside barrier with nest boxes, fewer diamond-backed terrapin crossed the road compared to before installation. One replicated study in the USA found that after installing barriers, diamondback terrapins laid more nests on the marsh-side of the fence than on the road-side. The study also found that terrapins were less likely to breach barriers with smaller gaps at the bottom. One replicated study in the USA found that desert tortoises were effectively blocked by a concrete barrier. One replicated study in the USA found that taller fences were better at excluding painted and snapping turtles than lower ones. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that desert tortoises interacted less with solid compared to non-solid barriers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3500Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:31:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of installing barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways on reptile populations. Five studies were in the USA, three were in each of Spain, Australia and Canada and one was in each of France and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Survival (8 studies): Four of seven studies (including one randomized, controlled, before-and-after study and one review) in the USA, Australia, Canada and South Africa found that installing fencing and crossing structures did not reduce road mortalities of reptiles, and in one case the percentage of mortalities may have increased. Two studies found that areas with fencing and crossing structures had fewer road mortalities of turtles and overall reptiles. One study found that reptile road mortalities still occurred in in areas with roadside barrier walls and culverts. One replicated, before-and-after study in Canada found that following installation of tunnels and guide fencing, along with signs for motorists, there were fewer road mortalities of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes. BEHAVIOUR (12 STUDIES) Use (12 studies): Six studies (including two replicated studies and one review) in Spain, France, the USA and Australia found that crossing structures with fencing that were not specifically designed for wildlife were used by lizards, snakes, tortoises, turtles and alligators and ophidians. One study also found that the addition of fencing around crossing structures did not affect the number of reptile crossings. Three studies (including one replicated and one before-and-after study and one review) in the USA and Spain found that wildlife crossing structures with fencing were used by gopher tortoises and 12 snake species, American alligators and lacertid lizards. One study also found that an American alligator did not use the wildlife crossing structure. Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in Canada found mixed effects of installing roadside fencing and culverts on road use by turtles and snakes. One replicated study in Spain found that use of different crossing structures depended on species group. One replicated study in Australia found that reptiles used wildlife underpasses or culverts for only 1% of road crossings. One replicated, before-and-after study in Canada found that following installation of tunnels and guide fencing, along with signs for motorists, fewer eastern massasauga rattlesnakes were found crossing the road. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3507Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:03:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpasses under roads/railways Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of installing tunnels/culverts/underpasses under roads/railways on reptile populations. Four of the studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, three were in Spain, two were in Canada and one was in each of Australia, Europe and North America and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one before-and-after study) in Australia and South Africa found a similar number of reptile road mortalities with or without culverts or wildlife underpasses. One replicated study in Spain found that the number of underpasses in an area did not affect the number of reptile road mortalities. BEHAVIOUR (12 STUDIES) Use (12 studies): Six studies (including four replicated studies and one replicated, before-and-after study) and one review in Spain, Australia, the USA and Australia, Europe and North America found that crossing structures, including tunnels, culverts, underpasses, pipes and trenches under roads and railways were used by reptiles, lizards, snakes and/or tortoises. One review in Australia, Europe and North America also found that wildlife underpasses were used by reptiles in only one of 13 studies. Three of four replicated studies (including one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that desert tortoises, painted and snapping turtles and rattlesnakes and garter snakes showed a willingness to enter some, or all types of tunnel. The other study found that only 9% of painted turtles entered a culvert during a choice experiment. One site comparison study in Australia found that the area under an overpass was used by five reptile species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3508Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:55:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over roads/railways Five studies evaluated the effects of installing overpasses over roads/railways on reptile populations. Three studies were in Spain, one was a review of studies in Australia, Europe and North America and one study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that the composition of reptile species on a vegetated overpass was more similar to woodland on one side of the overpass than the other. Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that a vegetated overpass was colonised by two reptile species each year over five years. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Occupancy/range (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that a vegetated overpass was colonized by 14 of 23 native reptile species and one non-native reptile species. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three of four studies (including two replicated studies and one review) in Spain and Australia, Europe and North America found that overpasses not designed for wildlife were used by lizards and snakes and reptiles. The other study found that overpasses not designed for wildlife were not used by snakes or lizards. Two replicated studies in Spain found that wildlife overpasses were used by lizards and Ophidians (snakes and legless lizards), and one review in Australia, Europe and North America found that one of 10 wildlife overpasses were used by reptiles. One review of road crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America found that a rope bridge was not used by reptiles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3510Tue, 07 Dec 2021 12:26:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing crossings over/under pipelines 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%2F3528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3528Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:34:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing and maintaining anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement 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%2F3532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3532Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:45:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptiles One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptile populations. This study was in St Kitts1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in St Kitts1 found that fishers that took jobs on a turtle management project reported that they ceased turtle fishing activity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3542https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3542Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:10:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve treatment standards of sewage and wastewater We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of improving treatment standards of sewage and wastewater. ‘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%2F3569https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3569Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:08:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Sea turtles Three studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on sea turtle populations. One study was in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was in the Mid-Atlantic (USA) and one was off the coast of Western Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Gulf of Mexico found that when exclusion grids with escape holes were used in a shrimp trawl fishery there were fewer lethal strandings of loggerhead turtles compared to when grids were not used. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled study in the Mid-Atlantic found that when exclusion devices were used on scallop dredges there were fewer interactions with sea turtles than when no devices were used. OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study off the coast of Western Australia found that exclusion grids with escape hatches prevented sea turtles entering trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3584Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install stormwater traps to prevent garbage from reaching rivers, coastal and marine environments We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing stormwater traps to prevent garbage from reaching rivers, coastal and marine environments. ‘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%2F3589https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3589Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:59:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle populations. Ten studies were in the USA, two were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that fewer turtles died in hoop nets with an exclusion device than in unmodified traps. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One randomized, controlled trial in the USA found mixed effects of crab pot exclusion devices on use of pots by diamondback terrapins depending on the device design. OTHER (13 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (13 studies): Eight of 13 controlled studies (including seven replicated, paired studies) in the USA, Australia and Canada found that crab pots, fyke nets, hoop nets and eel traps with exclusion devices caught fewer turtles, diamond back terrapins and short-necked turtles than unmodified gear. Two studies also found that modified gear caught smaller short-necked turtles and diamondback terrapins than unmodified gear. Three studies found mixed effects of exclusion devices on unwanted catch of turtles and diamondback terrapins depending on the device design. The other two studies found that that crab pots with wire exclusion devices or magnetized exclusion devices caught a similar number of diamondback terrapins compared to unmodified pots. One study also found that crab pots with wire exclusion devices caught larger diamondback terrapins than pots with plastic exclusion devices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3590Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:11:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards One study evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study off the coast of Western Australia found that exclusion grids did not prevent sea snakes from entering trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3599Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:47:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear 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%2F3600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3600Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Sea turtles One study evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on sea turtle populations. This study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 Study): One randomized, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea turtles compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:09:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle populations. One study was in each of Australia, the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that a lower percentage of turtles died in hoop nets with escape devices than in unmodified nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that most short-necked turtles escaped from a carp trap with an escape ring. One replicated, randomized, controlled, paired study in the USA found that hoop nets with escape devices caught fewer turtles than unmodified nets. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Canada found that more painted turtles escaped from fyke nets with an escape device than from unmodified nets after being placed in the net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3602https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3602Thu, 09 Dec 2021 09:55:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. All three studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One of two paired, controlled studies (including one randomized and one replicated study) in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. The other study found that trawl nets with an escape device caught fewer sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that the placement of escape devices trawl nets affected the number of sea snakes caught compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:08:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear 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%2F3604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3604Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:16:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion and escape devices on fishing gear Six studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion and escape devices on fishing gear on reptile populations. Two studies each were off the coast of Australia, in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and in the Adriatic Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the Adriatic Sea found that one or two loggerhead turtles were able to escape from a trawl net with an exclusion and escape device. OTHER (5 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled studies) off the coast of Australia and in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) found that that trawl nets with an exclusion and escape device caught fewer loggerhead turtles or sea turtles and sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated study in the Adriatic Sea found that no loggerhead turtles were caught by a trawl net with an exclusion and escape device. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3605Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:22:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose noise limits in proximity to reptile habitats and routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of imposing noise limits in proximity to reptile habitats and routes. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3639Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:06:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install sound barriers in proximity to reptile habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing sound barriers in proximity to reptile habitats. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3640Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:09:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start wild-caught reptiles for release: Sea turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of head-starting wild-caught sea turtles for release. Two studies were in the Caribbean Sea and one was in each of the Torres Strait, northern Australia, the Gulf of Mexico, Japan, the USA and Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that over the course of a 37-year head-start programme, the number of kemp’s ridley nests laid on the Texas coastline increased from near zero to 119. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in Mexico and the USA found that all 11 head-started Kemp’s ridley turtles bred in the wild following release and head-started turtles that were allowed to crawl to the sea before recapture began laying nests on their beach of origin 10–12 years after release. Survival (4 studies): One of four studies (including two replicated and two controlled studies) in the Caribbean Sea, Torres Strait near Australia, Gulf of Mexico and Japan reported that all 11 head-started Kemp’s ridley turtles survived at least 11–19 years following release. Two of the studies reported that 1–16% of sea turtles were recaptured 10–27 month or 0.5–13 months following release. The other study found that four head-started hawksbill turtles survived at least 4–9 days, and one survived at least 10 months following release. Condition (1 study): One replicated study in Thailand found mixed effects of tank depth on growth rate, size and body condition of green turtles during a head-starting programme and no effect of feed type. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the Caribbean Sea reported that one head-started green turtle travelled 2,300 km from its release location, whereas other recaptures were within 1–14 km of the release site. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in the Caribbean Sea found mixed effects on swimming behaviour of released head-started loggerhead turtles at 1.5 years old compared to 2.5 years old. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3775https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3775Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:21:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start wild-caught reptiles for release: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Eighteen studies evaluated the effects of head-starting wild-caught tortoises, terrapins, side-necked and softshell turtles for release. Thirteen studies were in the USA, two were in Venezuela and one was in each of the Galápagos, Poland and Madagascar. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One controlled study in Venezuela found that 57% of captured giant sideneck river turtles were head-started individuals. Survival (13 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA and Poland found that head-started European pond turtles and desert tortoises had similar survival compared to wild turtles or hatchlings released directly into the wild. The other study found that head-started northern redbelly turtles had higher survival than wild hatchling turtles. This study also found that in the first year of release, larger head-started turtles had higher survival, but in year 2–3 survival was similar for all sizes. Four of 12 studies (including nine replicated studies) in the Galápago, the USA, Madagascar and Venezuela reported that 50–100% of head-started individuals survived for three months to 1–5 years after release. Three of the studies reported that 6–43% of individuals survived for 1–3 years. Two of the studies reported that six of six, two of 10 and nine of 10 radio-tracked individuals survived 3–12 months. Two of the studies reported that annual survival was 80–100% or 3–100% in the year following release but 82–100% in subsequent years. The other study reported that some giant sideneck river turtles survived up to 14 years. Two studies also reported that survival during the captive phase was 91–100%. One study also found that more tortoises head-started in outdoor seaside pens died than did those from indoor pens. One replicated, controlled study in Venezuela found that survival of Arrau turtles during the captive phase was lower for turtles from relocated nests compared to those from nests that were not moved. Condition (5 studies): One of two replicated studies in the USA found that two-year-old head-started gopher tortoises were larger at their time of release than two-year-old tortoises released in to the wild directly after hatching. The other study found that Agassiz’s desert tortoise hatchlings grew more slowly in captivity than tortoises in the wild. Two studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that Alabama red-bellied cooters and wood turtles grew during 12–16 months in captivity, and wood turtles showed no signs of shell malformation. One controlled study in Venezuela found that the size distribution of released head-started giant sideneck river turtles was similar to that of wild turtles when newly released individuals were excluded. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the USA found that 81% of desert tortoises established home ranges within 13 days of release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3776https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3776Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:31:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start wild-caught reptiles for release: Snakes & lizards Nine studies evaluated the effects of head-starting wild-caught snakes and lizards for release. Five studies were in the USA, two were in Puerto Rico and one was in each of the Cayman Islands and Jamaica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after and one replicated study) in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands reported that the number of Jamaican iguanas found in the wild was higher after 23 years of head-starting and releasing compared to at the start of the programme and that there was a stable population of blue iguanas over four years during ongoing releases of head-started individuals. Reproductive success (4 studies): Four studies (including two replicated studies) in Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the USA reported successful reproduction following release of head-started Jamaican iguanas (but not for 16 years) and Mona Island iguanas, and that timber rattlesnakes copulated or participated in pre-copulatory behaviour. One study also reported that 88–90% of Mona Island iguana eggs hatched successfully. Survival (8 studies): Two of three controlled studies (including one replicated, randomized study) in the USA found that head-started plains gartersnakes and common water snakes were recaptured a similar number of times or had similar survival compared to resident snakes. The other study found that head-started northern water snakes had lower survival following release than resident snakes. One study also found that 76% of snakes survived the captive phase of head-starting. Three studies (including two replicated studies) in the USA and Puerto Rico reported that 22–40% of timber rattlesnakes or Mona Island iguanas survived for monitoring periods of eight months to six years. One replicated study in the USA found that head-started eastern massasaugas released in summer had higher survival than snakes released in autumn. One before-and-after study in Jamaica reported that 16% of Jamaican iguanas died during the captive phase of head-starting. Condition (5 studies): Two of three controlled studies (including one replicated, randomized study) in the USA found that head-started northern water snakes and common water snakes grew more slowly than resident snakes. The other study found that head-started plains gartersnakes had similar growth rates to resident snakes. One study also found that head-started common water snakes had similar body condition to resident snakes. One controlled study in Puerto Rico found that body condition of head-started Mona Island iguanas was higher than wild iguanas before release, but similar at their first recapture after release. One replicated study in the USA found that more head-started eastern massasaugas released in summer gained weight before hibernation than snakes released in autumn. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): One of three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in the USA found that head-started common water snakes showed similar behaviour to residents across a range of behaviour measures. One of the studies found that head-started northern water snakes had smaller home ranges and showed less surface activity than resident snakes. The other study found that head-started eastern massasaugas released in summer had larger home ranges than snakes released in autumn. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3777https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3777Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:03:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start wild-caught reptiles for release: Crocodilians Seven studies evaluated the effects of head-starting wild-caught crocodilians for release. Two studies were in each of the Philippines and Nepal and one study was in each of Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated study) in the Philippines and Nepal reported that following releases of head-started crocodiles or gharials, wild populations increased in size over 8–9 years. Reproductive success (2 studies): One replicated study in Argentina reported that released head-started broad-snouted caimans had similar clutch sizes and hatching success compared to non-head-started caiman. One replicated study in Nepal reported successful reproduction in all four rivers where head-started gharials were released. Survival (5 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Venezuela, the Philippines and Nepal reported that 88% of head-started Orinoco crocodiles survived 8–12 months and 53% of Philippine crocodiles or gharials survived for one year following release. One study also found that survival of Philippine crocodile hatchlings during the captive phase of head-starting was higher than for non-head-started hatchlings in the wild. One replicated study in Argentina reported that at least five released head-started broad-snouted caimans survived 9–10 years. One replicated study in Zimbabwe found that 38% of released head-started Nile crocodiles were recaptured at least once over four years. This study also found that hatching success of Nile crocodile eggs in the head-start programme was 74%, and that survival of hatchlings during the captive phase was lowest during the first year. Condition (1 studies): One study in Venezuela found that released head-started Orinoco crocodiles grew at a similar rate to resident juvenile crocodiles. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3778https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3778Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:26:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start wild-caught reptiles for release: Tuatara Two studies evaluated the effects of head-starting wild-caught tuatara for release. Both studies were in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One study in New Zealand reported that 67–70% of head-started tuatara survived over monitoring periods of 9–11 months. One study in New Zealand found that 56% of head-started tuatara were recaptured over six years following release. Condition (1 studies): One study in New Zealand reported that head-started tuatara increased in weight by around 100 g during the five years following release. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3779https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3779Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:42:27 +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