Vertebrate fauna evaluation after habitat restoration in a reserve within Mexico City

  • Published source details San-José M., Garmendia A. & Cano-Santana Z. (2013) Vertebrate fauna evaluation after habitat restoration in a reserve within Mexico City. Ecological Restoration, 31, 249-252.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create or restore shrubland

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Restore or create shrubland

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Create or restore shrubland

    A replicated, controlled study in 2009–2010 in three sites of dry scrub within a wider urban setting in Mexico City, Mexico (San-José et al. 2013) found that restoring shrubland by planting native species, removing invasive plants and constructing rock piles resulted in similar species richness, but higher abundance of lizards compared to a site with no management. Results were not statistically tested, and the effect of each intervention cannot be separated. Restored sites had a similar number of species (4 species of reptiles and amphibians) as the site with no management (3 species of reptiles and amphibians). Higher numbers of lizards were observed in the two restored sites compared to the site with no management (overall abundances not provided). In 2005–2006, restored sites (0.5 and 0.3 ha) were cleared of rubbish and exotic woody vegetation (dominated by Eucalyptus camaldulensis); replanted with native vegetation; and rock piles were constructed (2–3 m diameter and 1.2 m high). The site without management (0.3 ha) had no vegetation removal or planting or rock piles. Sites were surveyed eight times each by slow, random walks between May 2009–2010.

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson)

  2. Restore or create shrubland

    A site comparison study in 2009–2010 of scrubland at three sites in Mexico City, Mexico (San-José et al. 2013) found that where native shrubland vegetation was restored on degraded areas, mammal species richness was similar to that in a natural area, but more species were non-native. No statistical analyses were performed. In restored areas mammal species richness was similar (8–10 species) to that in an undisturbed shrubland (7 species). However, the restored areas had more non-native species (4 species) than did the undisturbed area (1 species). In 2005–2006, in two sites, non-native plants were removed and native shrubland vegetation was established. A nearby undisturbed shrubland was used for comparison. Small mammals were surveyed using 16 Sherman live traps on each site, over two consecutive nights, every three months, from February 2009 to May 2010. Medium-sized mammals were surveyed on day and night visits, every two weeks, from May 2009 to May 2010. Mammal latrine samples were identified to species.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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