Effect of high-intensity wildfire and silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub

  • Published source details Greenberg C.H., Neary D.G. & Harris L.D. (1994) Effect of high-intensity wildfire and silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub. Conservation Biology, 8, 1047-1057.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reseed logged forest

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Reseed logged forest

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1991–1992 in sand-pine scrub forest in Florida, USA (Greenberg et al. 1994) found that clearcutting with reseeding did not have greater reptile species richness, abundance, or diversity than salvage logging with natural regeneration but that community composition differed between managed and unmanaged stands. Logging and seeding treatments were carried out together and it is not possible to distinguish their effects. Reptile species richness, abundance, diversity and evenness were similar between clearcutting with broadcast seeded (richness: 8 species/stand, abundance: 69 individuals/stand, Shannon Diversity Index: 0.7, evenness: 0.8, see paper for details), clearcutting with direct-drill seeded plots (7, 79, 0.6, 0.8), salvaged logged with natural regeneration (9, 41, 0.8, 0.8), and unmanaged stands (9, 31, 0.8, 0.8). Community composition was similar between all managed plots (0.88–0.95), but all managed plots were less similar to mature forest stands (0.54–0.65, results reported as Horn’s Index of Community Similarity, see original paper for details including individual species abundances). Forest stands were managed by: clearcutting with roller chopping and broadcast seeding, clearcutting with direct-drill machine-seeding and salvage logging with natural regeneration (following a high intensity wildfire) (three stands/management type). Reptiles were surveyed 5–7 years after management in August 1991–September 1992 by trapping every alternate two weeks using drift fences with pitfall and funnel traps. Reptiles were also trapped in three unlogged stands that had not been burned or otherwise managed for 55 years.

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson, Katie Sainsbury)

Output references
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