Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests Six studies evaluated the effects of thinning trees within forests on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in each of Brazil, Spain and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Spain found that areas of thinned forest had similar reptile species richness compared to areas with no thinning. One study also found that thinned areas had lower species richness than areas of open habitat. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that areas of forest thinned 8–20 years previously had higher diversity of reptiles than areas thinned less than eight or more than 20 years previously, or than areas with no thinning. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Brazil, the USA, and Spain found that areas of thinned forest had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to areas with no thinning. One study found mixed effects of thinning trees on the abundance of three lizard species. The other study found that areas of thinned forest had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas with no thinning. That study also found that areas with the most thinning had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to areas of open habitat. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that areas of forest thinned 8–20 years previously had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas thinned at other times or areas with no thinning. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas of thinned forest had a higher abundance of snakes than clearcut forest. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3627https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3627Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:43:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees One study evaluated the effects of coppicing trees on reptile populations. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that no slow worms or common lizards were found in coppiced areas of woodland, whereas they were found in open areas maintained by vegetation cutting. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3629https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3629Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:25:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvest 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3630https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3630Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:28:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave standing/deadwood snags in forests Two studies evaluated the effects of leaving standing/deadwood snags in forests on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding snags and woody debris had mixed effects on reptile diversity and species richness when compared to not manipulating debris or removing debris. The other study found that increasing standing coarse woody debris had no effect on reptile diversity and species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding snags and woody debris had mixed effects on reptile abundance when compared to not manipulating debris or removing debris. The other study found that increasing standing coarse woody debris had no effect on reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3631https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3631Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave woody debris in forests after logging Six studies evaluated the effects of leaving woody debris in forests after logging on reptile populations. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect the richness of reptile species, or immigrating reptiles. The other study found that areas where woody debris was left in place had higher reptile species richness than areas where debris was cleared and burned. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect reptile species diversity or overall reptile and amphibian species diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four of five studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect the abundance of reptiles, snakes, snakes and lizards or immigrating reptiles. The other study found that areas where woody debris was left in place had higher reptile abundance than areas where debris was cleared and burned. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3632https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3632Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:36:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use smaller machinery to log forests We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using smaller machinery to log forests 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3633https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3633Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:48:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3634https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3634Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:49:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of harvesting groups of trees instead of clearcutting 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3635https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3635Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:51:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting Two studies evaluated the effects of shelterwood harvesting on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that shelterwood harvesting had mixed effects on reptile species richness compared to areas with no management. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the USA found that areas with shelterwood harvesting had a lower abundance of juvenile eastern box turtles than clearcut areas. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that shelterwood harvesting had mixed effects on reptile abundance compared to areas with no management. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3636https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3636Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:52:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective logging Three studies evaluated the effects of using selective logging in forests on reptile populations. One study was in each of Brazil, the USA and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found that areas with low intensity selective logging tended to have similar reptile species richness compared to areas with high intensity selective logging. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study) in Brazil and the USA found that selective logging intensity had mixed effects on the abundance of three lizard species. The other study found that areas with selective logging had similar reptile abundance compared to areas with combined clearcutting and thinning. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3637https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3637Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:57:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reseed logged forest One study evaluated the effects of reseeding logged forest on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that reptile communities in areas that were reseeded were not more similar to mature forest stands than those left to regenerate naturally. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas left to regenerate naturally. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile abundance compared to areas left to regenerate naturally. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3638https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3638Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:04:16 +0000