Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect specific habitat structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting specific habitat structures 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%2F3665https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3665Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:00:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Alter water flow rates One study evaluated the effects of altering water flow rates on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that releasing a large flow of water into a wetland system had mixed effects on relative abundance of eastern long-necked turtles and the number of turtles caught. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that after releasing a large flow of water into a wetland system, body condition of eastern long-necked turtles improved. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3666https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3666Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain dams or water impoundments One study evaluated the effects of maintaining dams or water impoundments on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that after sediment removal, or dam maintenance along with sediment removal, one water impoundment was still used by Sonoran mud turtles and a second was not used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3667https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3667Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:22:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements. 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 an eel ladder was used by common watersnakes in five of eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:24:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or maintain beaches (‘beach nourishment’) Three studies evaluated the effects of restoring or maintaining beaches on reptile populations. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that gopher tortoise densities were higher and numbers occupying burrows similar on constructed sand dunes compared to natural dunes. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two controlled, before-and-after studies in the USA found that one year after adding sand to beaches, nesting activity decreased more for loggerhead turtles, and loggerhead and green turtles compared to on unmodified beaches. Two years after nourishment, both studies found that loggerhead nesting activity had increased, and in one study nesting had returned to pre-nourishment levels. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that burrows on a constructed dune were discovered by gopher tortoises after three months. Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that one year after adding sand to beaches, loggerhead turtles made more non-nesting crawls than on unmodified beaches, but the difference was smaller two years after nourishment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3669Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:30:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Armour shorelines to prevent erosion We found no studies that evaluated the effects of armouring shorelines to prevent erosion 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%2F3670https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3670Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:37:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on sea turtle populations. All four studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that on islands where raccoons and feral pigs or only feral pigs were eradicated, fewer loggerhead and loggerhead and green turtle nests were predated than before predator control began. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that controlling raccoons on short sections of a beach resulted in similar predation of loggerhead turtle nests compared to in sections of the beach with no control. One before-and-after study in the USA found that disruptions to a programme controlling raccoons and armadillos resulted in more predation of loggerhead, leatherback and green turtle nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3671https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3671Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:54:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtle populations. Four studies were in the USA and three were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Reproductive success (7 studies): Six of seven studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Australia and the USA found that in areas with mammal or fire ant control, and in two cases with fencing, fewer tortoise, turtle and terrapin nests were predated compared to areas with no control, or before control began. Two studies also found that predation increased again a year after control or in the second year of control. The other study found that following short-term fox control, a similar number of artificial eastern long-necked turtle nests were predated by foxes compared to before control began. Survival (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study and one randomized study) in Australia and the USA found that in a fenced area with mammal or fire ant control, more gopher tortoise hatchlings survived for one year or at least 150 days compared to fenced areas with no control. The other study found mixed effects of fox control on survival of Murray short-necked turtles and broad-shelled turtles depending on turtle species, age and sex. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fox control, freshwater turtles nested further from the water and nests were more spread out compared to areas with no control, or before control began. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3672Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:10:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Snakes & lizards Twelve studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on snake and lizard populations. Four studies were in New Zealand, two were in each of Australia and the Galápagos, and one was in each of Indonesia, Antigua, Mexico and the Bahamas. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Four of six before-and-after studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in New Zealand, Antigua, Mexico and the Bahamas found that on islands where both Pacific rats and European rabbits, Pacific rats, black rats and cats were eradicated, the abundance of lizards and Antiguan racer snakes. One study found that on an island where black rats were eradicated the number of San Salvador rock iguanas remained similar compared to before eradication. The other study found that eradicating mice had mixed effects on the abundance of lizards. One study also found that lizard abundance on an island with eradication was initially lower than on a predator free island, but after two years was similar or higher. One controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that across areas with fox and cat control or only fox control, gecko and skink numbers were similar to an area with no control, but dragon lizard numbers were lower. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that in areas with fox control sand goanna abundance was higher and there was mixed effects on small lizard abundance compared to in areas with no control. Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Galápagos found that on an island where cats were eradicated the number of offspring of reintroduced Galápagos land iguanas was higher than before cat control began. Survival: (2 studies): One study in New Zealand found that survival of captive-bred Otago skinks released into an enclosure after mouse eradication was higher compared to when skinks were released in the presence of mice. One study in Indonesia reported no mortality of monitor lizards following use of poison baits to control black rats. Condition (2 studies): One of two studies in Indonesia and the Galápagos found that on an island where black rats were controlled, rodenticide was detected in the livers of lava lizards for up to 850 days after its use began. The other study reported no illness in monitor lizards following use of poison baits to control black rats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3673Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:27:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls 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%2F3674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3674Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:42:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Tuatara One study evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on tuatara populations. This study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that after eradicating Pacific rats the abundance of tuatara was higher on islands where rats were eradicated than on islands where some rats remained, and that the percentage of total tuatara that were juveniles increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3675Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:44:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators by relocating them Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing or controlling predators by relocating them. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that after raccoons were live trapped and relocated, the number of freshwater turtle hatchlings increased for 2–3 years, then decreased again after 3–4 years. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA found that within a fenced area where predators were removed by both relocating and lethal controls, fewer gopher tortoise nests were predated than outside the fenced area where predators were not removed. The other study found that after raccoons were live trapped and relocated, predation of freshwater turtle nests decreased for 2–3 years, then increased again after 3–4 years. Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that within a fenced area where predators were removed by both relocating and lethal controls, survival of gopher tortoise hatchlings was higher than outside the fenced area where predators were not removed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3676https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3676Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:46:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using fencing and/or aerial nets Ten studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing or controlling predators using fencing and/or aerial nets. Five studies were in Australia, two were in each of the USA and New Zealand and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study in Australia found mixed effects of fencing in combination with removal of invasive mammals on reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three of four studies (including one paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study) in Australia found mixed effects of fencing or fencing and removal of invasive mammals on the abundance of reptiles. The other study found that small lizards were more abundant inside fenced areas than outside fenced areas. This study also found mixed effects of fencing on the abundance of skinks and geckos. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fencing the abundance of reptiles increased more over time than in areas with no fencing. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Spain found that in areas with fencing in combination with predator removal, gopher tortoise nests were predated less frequently than in areas with no corrals or fencing with predator removal. The other study found mixed effects of fencing on predation of artificial western Hermann’s tortoise nests. Survival (4 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in New Zealand and the USA found that in areas with fencing in combination with predator removal, more gopher tortoise hatchlings survived for a year than in areas with no fencing or predator removal or survival of captive-bred Otago skinks released into an enclosure was higher when mice had been eradicated compared to when skinks were released in the presence of mice. The other study found that use of predator exclosure fences did not result in increased survival of McCann’s skink compared to areas without exclosures. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that in enclosures designed to exclude small mammals with additional fencing and overhead netting, a similar number of gopher tortoise hatchlings were predated by vertebrate predators compared to in unmodified enclosures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3677Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:52:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for local staff in species identification We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of providing training for local staff in species identification. ‘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%2F3678https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3678Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:56:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to 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%2F3679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3679Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:00:10 +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: Engage local communities in conservation activities Six studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging local communities in reptile conservation. One study was in each of the Philippines, Mozambique, Brazil, Costa Rica, Australia and Colombia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where community-based management of fishing practices was implemented had a higher abundance of river turtles than areas with no community-based management. Reproductive success (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one site comparison study) in Mozambique and Costa Rica found that after involving the community in monitoring of nesting activity, fewer sea turtle eggs were lost to poaching than before projects began. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that when management of a saltwater crocodile egg harvest passed to an Indigenous management group, the number of eggs collected and hatching success of those eggs was lower than when it was run by an external company. Survival (2 studies): One study in the Philippines found that after rural community members were paid a small incentive to protect Philippine crocodile sanctuaries combined with an education and awareness campaign, fewer crocodiles were killed than before community engagement. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no killing of adults was recorded. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in Colombia found that in areas where communities were engaged in conservation initiatives relating to turtles, more people reported changing consumption habitats and fewer people reported using turtles for food compared to in areas with no initiatives, however, stated rates of hunting, buying and selling of turtles remained similar. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:15:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use education and/or awareness campaigns to improve behaviour towards reptiles and reduce threats Seven studies evaluated the effects of using education and/or awareness campaigns to improve behaviour towards reptiles and reduce threats. One study was in each of Costa Rica, India, the Philippines, Dominica, the USA, Saint Kitts and Colombia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 studies): One before-and-after study in the Philippines found that following a communication, education, and public awareness campaign, the population of Philippine crocodiles increased. Reproductive success (1 study): One study in Costa Rica found that during a community-based education programme the percentage of leatherback turtle nests lost to poaching decreased. Survival (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies in the Philippines and Dominica found that following education and awareness campaigns, one in combination with use of road signs, human killing of Philippine crocodiles decreased and there were fewer road-deaths of lesser Antillean iguanas compared to before the campaigns began. One study in India reported that following education and awareness campaigns in combination with creating a network of local snake experts, local snake experts reported that they intervened to save 276 non-venomous snakes from being killed over six years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (3 studies): One replicated study in Colombia found that in areas with conservation initiatives relating to turtles, more people reported changing consumption habitats and fewer people reported using turtles for food compared to in areas with no initiatives, however, stated rates of hunting, buying and selling of turtles remained similar. One study in Saint Kitts found that attending an educational summer camp on turtle conservation had mixed effects on reported behaviours in relation to sea turtles of attendees and their parents/guardians, and mixed effects on whether they took part in conservation activities after the camp. One study in the USA found that providing an information leaflet did not decrease the number of hotel rooms that left lights on at night compared to when no leaflet was provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3682https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3682Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:30:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals Two studies evaluated the effects of using collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals on reptile populations. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized studies (including one before-and-after and one controlled study) in Australia found that cats wearing collar mounted neoprene bibs, with or without a bell, caught a similar number of combined reptiles and amphibians compared to cats not wearing them. The other study found that cats wearing collar mounted ruffs brought home fewer combined reptiles and amphibians than cats not wearing them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3683https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3683Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:42:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep domestic cats indoors at times when reptiles are most active We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of keeping domestic cats indoors at times when reptiles are most active. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3684Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:51:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leash or restrict domestic dog movements in reptile habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of leashing or restricting domestic dog movements in reptile habitats. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3685Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:07:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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 +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