Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas 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%2F3477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3477Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:37:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites in urban areas One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites in urban areas. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that an ex-industrial site that was protected was occupied by up to four species of reptiles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3478https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3478Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:43:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant native species for reptile habitat in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting native species for reptile habitat in urban areas 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%2F3479https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3479Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:53:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures   One study evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on reptiles. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile species richness compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile abundances compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3486Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:08:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent access to livestock water feeders One study evaluated the effects of preventing access to livestock water feeders on reptile populations. This study was in Morocco. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Morocco found that covering water feeder openings with wire mesh resulted in fewer combined reptiles and amphibians being trapped compared to water feeders without mesh covers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3521https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3521Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:55:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees on farmland Two studies evaluated the effects of planting trees on farmland to benefit reptiles. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in Australia found that pastures with tree plantings had similar rare reptile species richness compared to pastures with no trees, but that more rare species were present with 50% canopy cover compared to 5% cover. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that farms with restoration planting (of native ground cover and trees) had lower reptile species richness than farms with remnant vegetation (of old growth woodland or natural regrowth). POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in Australia found that pastures with tree plantings had higher abundance of rare reptiles than pastures with no trees, and that rare reptiles were more abundant with 50% canopy cover compared to 5% cover. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3527https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3527Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:32:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One controlled study found that using a horizontal-fin propeller guard or a cage propeller guard did not reduce catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using no guard, but that the types of injuries sustained were different. One controlled study found that using a jet drive outboard motor reduced catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using a standard outboard motor. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:07:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Patrol or monitor nesting beaches Seven studies evaluated the effects of patrolling or monitoring nesting beaches on reptile populations. Three studies were in Costa Rica and one was in each of the US Virgin Islands, Mexico, Mozambique and the Dominican Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after site comparison study in Costa Rica found that olive ridley turtle nests that were moved to a patrolled hatchery and nests that were camouflaged on the nesting beach had similar hatching success. One replicated, controlled study in the Dominican Republic found that on beaches with regular patrols, hatching success of leatherback turtle nests was higher than in nests relocated to hatcheries. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (6 studies): Two studies in the US Virgin Islands and Costa Rica found that during years when beach patrols were carried out poaching of leatherback turtle nests decreased. Three studies (including two before-and-after studies) in Costa Rica and Mexico found that when beach patrols were carried out in combination with either an education programme for local communities, limiting beach access or camouflaging nests and moving nests to a hatchery, poaching of leatherback turtle nests and olive ridley turtle nests decreased. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no green turtle egg collection or hunting of adults was recorded. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3541Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:56:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote knowledge exchange between fishers to improve good practice One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of promoting knowledge exchange between fishers to improve good practice. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following the introduction of a tool to help facilitate knowledge exchange and the avoidance of loggerhead turtles, loggerhead turtle bycatch was similar compared to the two years before the tool was introduced. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following the introduction of a tool to help facilitate avoidance of loggerhead turtles, fishers did not spend less time fishing in the areas recommended for avoidance by the tool.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3558Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:13:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the loss and discard of fishing gear and related debris We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of preventing the loss and discard of fishing gear and related debris. ‘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%2F3566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3566Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:58:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant riparian buffer strips One study evaluated the effects of planting riparian buffer strips on reptile populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that grassed riparian buffer strips were used by up to five snake species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3586Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:46:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting habitat along elevational gradients 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%2F3647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3647Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:47:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: All reptiles (excluding sea turtles) Seventeen studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on reptile populations (excluding sea turtles). Four studies were in the USA, two were in each of Australia and Brazil, and one was in each of Canada, Madagascar, South Africa, Spain, Hong Kong, Argentina, the borders of Zambia and Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of five studies (including two replicated, site comparison studies) in the USA, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan and Mexico found mixed effects of protected areas on reptile species richness and combined reptile and amphibian species richness. The other two studies found that protected areas had higher reptile species richness than unprotected farmland. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Six of 11 studies (including five replicated, site comparison studies) in the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, the border of Zambia and Zimbabwe and Pakistan found that protected areas had a higher abundance of reptiles, tortoises, Nile crocodiles and combined reptiles and amphibians than areas with less or no protection. Four studies found mixed effects of protection on the abundance of reptiles and big-headed turtles. The other study found that water bodies in protected areas had fewer eastern long-necked turtles than those in suburban areas. One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas with community-based management of fishing practices, which included protecting river turtle nesting beaches, had more river turtles than areas that did not manage fishing practices. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that the abundance of different sized radiated tortoises in a protected area was more similar to that of an exploited population than to an unexploited population. Occupancy/range (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that Argentine tortoises were found in one of two protected areas and two of three unprotected areas. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reptile species were still present 20 years after an area was protected. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that in areas with greater protections, survival of Agassiz’s desert tortoises was higher than in areas with less protections. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that roads running through protected areas had more reptile road deaths than roads in unprotected areas. Condition (4 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA, Australia and Hong Kong found that protected areas had larger red-eared sliders and big-headed turtles compared to areas where harvesting was allowed or was thought to be occurring illegally. The other study found that eastern long-necked turtles in protected areas grew slower and were smaller than turtles in suburban areas. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that radiated tortoises in a protected area had similar genetic diversity compared to populations outside of the protected area. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that a protected area was used by common chuckwallas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3661https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3661Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:53:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on sea turtle populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, the Seychelles, Belize and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, there were fewer nesting female leatherback turtles than before protection. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study off the coast of Belize found that in protected areas there were more hawksbill turtles than outside. One site comparison study in the USA found that differences in the abundance of green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles in protected and unprotected areas were mixed. Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, more leatherback turtle hatchlings were produced than before protection. One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that nesting activity by green turtles increased following both habitat and species protection. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:56:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer reptile-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards reptiles Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of offering reptile-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards reptiles. One study was in the USA and one was in St Kitts and Nevis. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One study in the USA reported that 32% of respondents to a survey said they would have gone to look for a nesting turtle if they had not been able to join a supervised turtle watch. One study in St Kitts and Nevis found that people who attended a leatherback turtle tour reported that they would be more conscientious of how their behaviours on the beach affected sea turtles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3680Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:01:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Sea turtles Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on sea turtle populations. Six studies were in the USA, two were in each of Turkey and Australia, and one was in each of Greece, Qatar, Indonesia, Cape Verde and Costa Rica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Reproductive success (15 studies): Eight of 14 studies (including 10 replicated, controlled studies) in the USA, Turkey, Qatar, Indonesia, Cape Verde, Australia and Costa Rica found that sea turtle, loggerhead, hawksbill and artificial sea turtle nests with artificial covers were predated less frequently than nests with no covers. Three studies found that covering sea turtle nests had mixed effects on predation, depending on predator species or year. One study found that loggerhead turtle nests with artificial covers were predated more frequently than nests with no covers. One study found that olive ridley turtle nests with and without artificial covers were all predated. The other study found that predation attempts of green and hawksbill turtle nests with artificial covers were similar compared to nests with no cover, but that predation success was affected by the cover design. Three studies also found that sea turtle and loggerhead turtle nests with artificial covers had higher hatching success than nests with no covers. One study also found that loggerhead turtle nests with artificial covers had similar hatching and emergence success compared to nests with no covers. One replicated, controlled study in Greece found that covering loggerhead turtle nests had mixed effects on hatching success compared to nests with no covers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3686https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3686Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:10:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtle populations. Five studies were in the USA and one was in each of the Galápagos and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Reproductive success (7 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the Galápagos and the USA found that Galápagos giant tortoise nests surrounded by rock-walled corrals and bog turtle nests covered with cages were predated less frequently than unprotected nests. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Canada and the USA found that nests of painted and snapping turtles and bog turtles covered with cages had similar hatching success compared to nests left uncovered. One of two replicated controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Canada and the USA found that painted and snapping turtle nests protected by three different cage types were predated a similar amount. The other study found mixed effects of different cage designs on predation rate of artificial nests at a diamondback terrapin nesting site. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that diamondback terrapin nests covered by a nest box with an electrified wire were predated less frequently than nests under a box with no wire. One before-and-after study in the USA found that over half of eggs from bog turtle nests covered with cages in an area grazed by cattle hatched successfully. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that diamondback terrapin nests covered with cages had hatching success of 55–93%, and 83–100% of uncaged nests were predated. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3687https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3687Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:08:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Snakes & lizards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers 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%2F3688https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3688Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:26:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers 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%2F3689https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3689Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:28:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Tuatara We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on tuatara 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%2F3690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3690Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:29:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation by camouflaging nests Two studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation by camouflaging nests on reptile populations. One study was in the USA and one was in Costa Rica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that Ouachita map turtle nests that were disguised by sweeping with a broom were predated at a similar rate as unswept nests. One before-and-after, site comparison study in Costa Rica found that camouflaged (details of method not provided) olive ridley turtle nests had similar hatching and emergence success compared to nests moved to a hatchery. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3691https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3691Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:31:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation by creating new nesting sites One study evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation by creating new nesting sites on reptile populations. This study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that predation rate of artificial Hermann’s tortoise nests in newly created nesting sites was similar to the predation rate in natural nesting sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3693https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3693Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:39:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using chemical deterrents Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using chemical deterrents on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Spain and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Three of four controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in Spain, the USA and Australia found that a similar number of artificial Hermann’s tortoise nests, diamondback terrapin nests and loggerhead turtle nests that had chemical deterrents, pepper powder or chilli powder applied were predated compared to nests with no deterrent. The other study found that fewer loggerhead turtle nets that had habanero pepper powder applied to the surface were predated than nests with no pepper powder, or nest with pepper powder below the surface. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3694Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:08:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using conditioned taste aversion One study evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using conditioned taste aversion on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that a similar number of loggerhead turtle nests were predated in areas of the beach where artificial nests containing unpalatable eggs were deployed (to condition taste aversion) compared to areas with no artificial nests with unpalatable eggs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3695Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:18:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant native species Two studies evaluated the effects of planting native species on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Occupancy/range (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that an area reseeded and replanted with native vegetation was colonized and abandoned at different times by two snake and one lizard species, and one other lizard species may have remained, but in low numbers. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that grasslands reseeded with both native and non-native grasses were used by Texas horned lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3709Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:49:56 +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