Study

Determining the success of varying short-term confinement time during simulated translocations of the endangered pygmy bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis)

  • Published source details Ebrahimi M. & Bull C.M. (2013) Determining the success of varying short-term confinement time during simulated translocations of the endangered pygmy bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis). Amphibia-Reptilia, 34, 31-39.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use holding pens or enclosures at release site prior to release of wild reptiles

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Create artificial burrows

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Use holding pens or enclosures at release site prior to release of wild reptiles

    A controlled study in 2009 in a grassland enclosure in South Australia, Australia (Ebrahimi & Bull 2013) found that translocated pygmy bluetongue lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis confined to holding pens with artificial burrows for one day after release dispersed to marginal habitat less frequently and basked more than lizards confined for five days. After translocated pygmy bluetongue lizards were released from holding pens, lizards confined to a pen for one day dispersed to marginal habitat less frequently (0.2 lizards/cage/day) and basked for longer (22 minutes/hour) than lizards confined for five days (dispersal: 0.8 lizards/cage/day; basking time: 13 minutes/hour). Activity levels, movements, burrow switching, and agonistic interactions were similar between lizards confined for one or five days (see original paper for details). In October 2009, sixteen pygmy bluetongue lizards were captured in the wild and released into one of four predator-proof cages in a zoo enclosure (4 lizards/cage). Each cage included a central grassy circle (4 m diameter) with artificial burrows, surrounded by a strip of bare ground (5 m wide), encircled by a strip of marginal habitat (0.5 m wide) containing artificial burrows (see original paper for details of burrows). When lizards were released, all cages had a holding pen around the central grass areas. The pen was removed from two cages after one day and from the remaining two cages after five days. Lizard activity was monitored by video cameras over 10 days and analysis of lizard behaviour was based on observations from days 6–10 of the study.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Create artificial burrows

    A replicated study in 2009 in a grassy enclosure in South Australia, Australia (Ebrahimi & Bull 2013, same experimental set-up as Ebrahimi & Bull 2012) found that translocated pygmy bluetongue lizards Tiliqua adelaidensis used artificial burrows, and burrow use was similar whether lizards were confined to holding pen for one or five days prior to release. Lizards were observed basking at artificial burrow entrances 85% of the time and exiting burrows 14% of the time. Of movements to and from artificial burrows, 62% were lizards returning to the same burrow, 29% were lizards moving to new burrows in the centre of the enclosure and 9% were lizards moving to new burrows at the edge of the enclosure. Lizard movements between artificial burrows was similar between translocated lizards confined to a holding area with burrows for one or five days (data reported as model outputs). In October 2009, sixteen translocated pygmy bluetongue lizards were released into one of four cages in a zoo enclosure (4 lizards/cage). Each cage included a central grassy circle (4 m diameter) with artificial burrows (made from hollowed wooden rods pushed into the ground), surrounded by a strip of bare ground (5 m wide), encircled by a strip of marginal habitat (0.5 m wide) with artificial burrows. When lizards were released, all cages had a holding pen around the central grass areas. The pen was removed after one (two cages) or five days (two cages). Lizard activity was monitored by video cameras over 10 days and analysis of lizard behaviour was based on observations from days 6–10 of the study (capturing 3,535 activity events and 504 lizard movements). 

    (Summarised by: 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