Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove invasive plant species to improve habitat within development footprints We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing invasive plant species to improve habitat within development footprints. ‘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%2F3483https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3483Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:10:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining or energy production sites Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining or energy production sites on reptile populations. Nine studies were in Australia, two were in the USA, one was in Spain and one was on Reunion Island. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Community composition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in Austalia and Spain found that restored mining areas hosted different reptile communities than unmined areas. One study found that reptile communities in the oldest restored areas were most similar to unmined areas. The other study found that restored mining areas that were seeded or received topsoil had similar community composition compared to surrounding unmined forests. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that restored mining sites had lower reptile species richness than unmined sites. One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Spain found that after restoration, reptile species richness increased steadily over a six-year period. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored areas supported most of typical reptile species found in the wider habitat. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that in restored mining areas reptiles tended to be less abundant than in unmined areas. The other study found mixed effects of restoration on reptile abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that restored areas that were thinned and burned 10–18 years after restoration began had higher reptile abundance than restored areas that were not thinned and burned. Reproductive success (2 studies): One review in Australia found that one study reported reptiles breeding in restored mining areas. One study on Reunion Island found that four of 34 and eight of 40 artificial egg laying sites in restored mining areas were used by Reunion day geckos nine months and two years after installation respectively. Condition (1 study): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia found that three of three studies indicated that reptile size or condition was similar in restored mines and undisturbed areas. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, site comparison study) in Australia and the USA found that restored mining areas were occupied by up to 14 snake, five turtle and one lizard species, or that generalist reptile species colonized restoration sites more quickly than did specialist species. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Napoleon’s skinks reintroduced to a restored mining site all moved to an unmined forest within one week of release. Behaviour change (1 studies): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia reported that one of one studies indicated that there were changes in behaviour of lizards between restored mines and undisturbed areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3497https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3497Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:43:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove garbage and other solid waste from terrestrial, aquatic and coastal environments One study evaluated the effects of removing garbage and other solid waste from terrestrial, aquatic and coastal environments on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3564https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3564Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:52:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove derelict fishing gear from reptiles found entangled We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing derelict fishing gear from reptiles found entangled. ‘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%2F3568https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3568Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:07:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate reptiles (including eggs and hatchlings) following oil spills Studies investigating the effect of relocating reptiles are discussed in Species management. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3577https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3577Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:20:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove coal combustion waste to reduce contamination of terrestrial and aquatic habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing coal combustion waste to reduce contamination of terrestrial and aquatic 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3594https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3594Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:23:34 +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 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3671https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3672https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3673https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3674https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3675https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3676https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3677https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3677Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:52:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native reptile competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native reptile competitors 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%2F3696https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3696Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:25:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native/invasive plants Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native/invasive plants on reptile populations. Two studies were in Australia and one was in each of South Africa and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush were sprayed with herbicide had similar reptile species richness compared to unsprayed areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush or para grass were controlled had a similar abundance of reptiles and combined reptiles and amphibians compared to areas with no control. One study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas with invasive control compared to unmanaged areas. The other study found that removing invasive non-native Sahara mustard had mixed effects on the abundance of Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizards and flat-tailed horned lizards. Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that in areas where an invasive plant was removed, nesting activity by Nile crocodiles increased more than in places with no removal. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3697https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3697Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:27:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive or problematic herbivores and seed eaters Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling invasive or problematic herbivores and seed eaters on reptile populations. Three studies were in Australia and one study was in each of Mauritius, New Zealand, the USA and the Galápagos. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two studies (one site comparison study and one controlled study) in the USA and Australia found that areas where feral horses had been removed had higher lizard and snake species richness than sites with horses. The other study found mixed effects of fencing in combination with removal of invasive mammals on reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Four of seven studies (including four controlled studies) in Mauritius, New Zealand, the USA, Australia and the Galápagos found that controlling European rabbits, grey kangaroos or herbivores and predators, in some cases using fencing, had mixed effects on the number of sightings or abundance of different reptile species. Two studies found that when both rabbits and Pacific rats or feral goats were removed the abundance of lizards or the percentage of giant tortoises that were juveniles. The other study found that areas where feral horses had been removed had similar lizard and snake abundance compared to sites with horses. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3698https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3698Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:35:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control toxic invasive amphibians (e.g. cane toads, Asian toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling toxic invasive amphibians 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%2F3699https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3699Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:52:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore beaches One study evaluated the effects of restoring beaches on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3752https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3752Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:30:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Snakes & lizards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3769https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3769Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:56:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Sea turtles Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting on sea turtle populations. Five studies were in the USA, two were in Suriname and the US Virgin Islands and one was in each of Costa Rica, Ascension Island, Brazil and Cape Verde. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Reproductive success (12 studies): Four of 12 controlled studies (including three replicated, randomized studies) in the USA, Suriname, US Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Ascension Island, Brazil and Cape Verde found that relocated sea turtle nests had lower hatching success than natural nests in six of seven years, in 26 of 29 years, or lower hatching success than nests laid above the tidal zone, or that nests relocated >10 days after being laid had lower hatching and emergence success than natural nests or nests relocated within 12 hours. One of those studies also found that relocating nests within 12 hours had mixed effects on hatching and emergence success compared to natural nests. One study also found that two different egg collecting methods resulted in either more dead early stage or late-stage embryos. Four of the studies found that relocated sea turtle nests had similar hatching and emergence success or hatching success compared to natural nests and specifically compared to those laid in safer parts of the beach or above the high tide line. One of those studies also found that relocated nests experienced similar levels of predation by ghost crabs as natural nests. One of the studies also found that fewer relocated nests failed completely due to tidal flooding compared to natural nests. One of the studies found that relocated loggerhead turtle nests had higher hatching success than natural nests. One of the studies found that relocated leatherback turtle nests had higher hatching success compared to natural nests that were washed over by sea swells, but similar hatching success compared to natural nests that were not washed over by sea swells. The other two studies found that relocating sea turtle nests had mixed effects on hatching or hatching and emergence success compared to natural nests. One of those studies also found that in years when leatherback turtle nests were relocated, fewer were lost to erosion than when no relocations took place. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that hatchlings from relocated loggerhead turtle nests were a similar size to hatchlings from natural nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Offspring sex ratio (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Suriname found that relocated leatherback turtle nests produced all female hatchlings, whereas 30–100% of hatchlings from naturally incubated nests were female. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3781https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3781Wed, 15 Dec 2021 14:46:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle One study was in each of Venezuela, Columbia, Canada and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies in Venezuela, Columbia, Canada and the USA found that relocated Arrau turtle and Magdalena river turtle nests had similar hatching success compared to natural nests. One of the studies found that painted turtle and snapping turtle nests relocated to artificial nest mounds had higher hatching success than natural nests. The other study found that relocating diamondback terrapin nests to artificial nest mounds had mixed effects on hatching success compared to natural nests. Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Venezuela found that Arrau turtle hatchlings from relocated nests had lower survival during their first year compared to hatchlings from natural nests. Condition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Venezuela found that Arrau turtle hatchlings from relocated nests had more physical abnormalities compared to hatchlings from natural nests. One replicated, controlled study in Columbia found that a similar number of eggs were infested by invertebrates and fungi in relocated and natural nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3782https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3782Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:14:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting on crocodile 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%2F3783https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3783Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:24:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Tuatara We found no studies that evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3784https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3784Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:25:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a hatchery: Tuatara We found no studies that evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a hatchery 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3794https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3794Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:59:42 +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