Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create patches of bare ground for ground-nesting beesOne replicated controlled trial in Germany and four small trials (three replicated, one not) have shown that artificially exposed areas of bare soil can be successfully colonised by ground-nesting solitary bees and wasps in the first or second year. We have captured no evidence for the effect of creating areas of bare ground on bee populations or communities on a larger scale.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F13https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F13Thu, 20 May 2010 19:29:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create open patches or strips in permanent grasslandA randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that more Eurasian skylarks used fields with open strips in, but that variations in skylark numbers were too great to draw conclusions from this finding.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F239https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F239Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:38:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland Two studies (both randomized, replicated and controlled) investigated the effects of creating open strips in permanent grassland. One trial from the UK found that more Eurasian skylarks used fields containing open strips, but variations in skylark numbers were too great to draw conclusions from this finding. One trial from Scotland found insect numbers in grassy headlands initially dropped when strips were cleared.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F563Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:19:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for frogs Three of five before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Australia, Spain, the UK and USA found that translocated, head-started, captive-bred and naturally colonizing frogs established breeding populations in created ponds. Two found that breeding populations were established at one of four sites by translocated frogs, but were not established by captive-bred frogs. One replicated, before-and-after study in Denmark found that frogs colonized created ponds. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that pond creation, along with vegetation clearance, increased a breeding population of European tree frogs. An additional three of four replicated, before-and-after studies in Italy, the UK and USA found that naturally colonizing frog species reproduced in 50–75% of created ponds. Two found that translocated frog species reproduced in only 31% of created ponds, or colonized but did not reproduce successfully. One replicated study in the USA found that survival of translocated Oregon spotted frogs increased with increasing age of created ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F865https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F865Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:47:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for amphibians Twenty-eight studies investigated the colonization of created ponds by amphibians in general (rather than by targeted species, which are discussed below). All of the studies found that amphibians used some or all created ponds. Nine site comparison studies (including seven replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Spain, the UK and USA compared amphibian numbers in created and natural ponds. Five found that numbers of species or breeding species were similar or higher in created ponds, and numbers of ponds colonized were similar. Four found that species composition differed, and comparisons between abundance of individual species, juvenile productivity and size at metamorphosis differed depending on species. One found that numbers of species were similar or lower depending on the permanence of created water bodies. One found that populations in created ponds were less stable. One review and two replicated, before-and-after studies in Denmark and the USA found that amphibians established stable populations in 50–100% of created ponds. Six replicated studies (including one randomized study) in France, the Netherlands, UK and USA found that amphibians used 64–100% and reproduced in 64–68% of created ponds, or used 8–100% and reproduced in 2–62% depending on species. One review and 15 studies (including 12 replicated studies, one of which was randomized) in Europe and the USA found that created ponds were used or colonized by up to 15 naturally colonizing species, up to 10 species that reproduced, as well as by captive-bred amphibians. Five replicated studies (including three site comparison studies) in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and the USA found that pond creation, and restoration in three cases, maintained and increased amphibian populations or increased numbers of species. Seven studies (including one review) in Austria, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands and USA found that use or colonization of or reproductive success in created ponds was affected by pond age, permanence, vegetation cover, surrounding landscape, distance to existing ponds and presence of fish.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:16:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas Three studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring bat foraging habitat in urban areas on bat populations. One study in each of the UK and USA evaluated green roofs and one study in the USA evaluated restored forest fragments. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found no difference in species richness over green roofs and conventional unvegetated roofs. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found higher bat activity (relative abundance) in two of seven restored forest fragments in urban areas than in two unrestored forest fragments. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the UK found greater bat activity over ‘biodiverse’ green roofs than conventional unvegetated roofs, but not over ‘sedum’ green roofs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found greater bat activity for three of five bat species over green roofs than over conventional unvegetated roofs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F954Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:44:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural habitat islands within agricultural land We found no evidence for the effects of creating natural habitat islands within agricultural land on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1425https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1425Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:30:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain small dams to provide foraging and drinking habitat for bats One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small dams as foraging and drinking habitat for bats on bat populations. The study was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that reservoirs created using small dams had greater activity (relative abundance) of four bat species than the streams feeding into them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1997Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:43:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create new unlit commuting routes using planting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating new unlit bat commuting routes using planting on bat 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2034https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2034Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:26:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain corridors between habitat patches Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of creating or maintaining corridors between habitat patches. One study was in each of Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated) in Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic found that corridors between habitat patches were used by small mammals. Additionally, North American deermice moved further through corridors with increased corridor width and connectivity and root voles moved further in corridors of intermediate width. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:20:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in freshwater marshes.   ‘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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3217https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3217Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:52:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3219Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:53:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that natural topography created on intertidal artificial structures was colonized by macroalgae and limpets, and that limpets used shaded grooves and water-retaining depressions created by the topography. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of juvenile canopy macroalgae that settled onto structure surfaces, regardless of the topography depth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating pit habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that pit habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without the added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:31:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Twenty-two studies examined the effects of creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were on open coastlines in the UK, the Netherlands and the Azores, six were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, three were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was in a port in the Netherlands, one was in an estuary and on an open coastline in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia, Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits did not alter the community composition. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects depending on the size and arrangement of pits and other habitats and the site, while one found that varying the pit size and arrangement had no significant effect. Three of these studies, along with three other replicated, controlled studies (including one that was randomized) in the UK and Singapore, reported that pit habitats, along with grooves and ridges in one, supported macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitats. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that pit habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without pits and grooves. Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Eight of 12 replicated controlled studies (including six randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, or grooves, small protrusions and ridges in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating pits did not increase the species richness, while two found that creating pits, along with grooves or using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects depending on the site. One of the studies found that varying the pit size and arrangement resulted in higher species richness, while one found that this had mixed effects depending on the shore level. Two of the studies found that varying the pit size did not affect species richness. One of them found that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits, along with grooves, had mixed effects on species richness. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small ridges, increased the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and the Azores reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure increased the limpet and periwinkle species richness on structure surfaces, and that their richness and diversity varied depending on the pit arrangement. One found that creating pits did not affect the limpet species richness, regardless of the pit size. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two of five replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits decreased their abundance and one found no effect. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement, shore level and site. Algal abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Netherlands, Singapore and the Azores found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small ridges in one study, did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement and the site. Invertebrate abundance (9 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (including six randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Azores, the Netherlands, Australia and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Three studies found that creating pits, along with grooves in one study, had mixed effects on barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site, the species, the size of animals, and/or the pit size and arrangement. Two studies found that creating pits, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, increased barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances. Two of the studies found that the pit size or arrangement did not affect abundances, while two found that the effects of pit size and arrangement varied depending on the site and species. One replicated randomized study in the UK found that increasing pit density increased periwinkle abundance, but pit arrangement did not. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the Azores reported that occupancy of pit habitats created on intertidal artificial structures by limpets and/or periwinkles varied depending on the pit size and arrangement, the size of animals, the species and/or site. Three replicated studies (including two paired sites, controlled studies) in the Netherlands and in Singapore and the UK reported that pit habitats were used by periwinkles, macroalgae and invertebrates. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:58:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore ponds Four studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring ponds on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Austria and China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (including one replicated and one before-and-after study) in Austria, the USA and China reported that following the creation of ponds, in one case 30–60 years after pond creation, or restoration of a river island that included creation of ponds grass snakes and sand lizards were found on the island, and ponds were occupied by mangrove salt marsh snakaes, common snapping turtles and midland painted turtles and Chinese alligators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3730https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3730Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:22:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore rock outcrops Five studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring rock outcrops on reptile populations. All five studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that areas restored with artificial rocks had a higher abundance of adult velvet geckos and similar numbers of juveniles compared to unrestored areas. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that in areas restored with artificial rocks, juvenile velvet geckos had higher survival rates than in unrestored areas. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some restored rocky outcrops were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that constructed rock outcrops were used by two snake and six lizard species at least as often as natural outcrops. Two replicated studies (including one randomized study) in Australia found that artificial rock outcrops were used by two lizard and one snake species and six lizard and two snake species. One study also found that unshaded artificial rocks were used more frequently by velvet geckos than shaded ones. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3732https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3732Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:39:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore grasslands Four studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring grasslands on reptile populations. One study was in each of South Africa, China, Australia and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Mongolia found that areas of restored grassland had similar species richness compared to unrestored areas. One replicated, site comparison study in South Africa found that an area of restored grassland had lower species richness than natural grassland in three of four comparisons. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired study) in Mongolia and the USA found that areas of restored grassland had higher lizard abundance than unrestored areas. The other study found that areas of restored grassland had fewer snakes than unrestored areas. One replicated, site comparison study in South Africa found that an area of restored grassland had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to two areas of natural grassland. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some areas of restored grassland and rocky outcrops were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3737https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3737Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:05:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore savannas One study evaluated the effects of creating or restoring savannas on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that reptile species richness was higher following restoration of savanna-like habitat on a golf course. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3739Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:15:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore forests Six studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring forests on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the USA and Australia found that restored and natural riparian forest had similar reptile species richness. The other study found that restored forest areas had higher reptile species richness than remnant forest areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that the type of restoration had mixed effects on reptile species richness in tropical and subtropical areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including two controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Mexico found that areas of restored forest had similar abundances of snakes and six lizard species as unrestored areas. The other study found that restoring forest stands had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that areas with different restoration types had similar reptile abundance in tropical and subtropical areas. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that restored forest areas had higher reptile abundance than remnant forest areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3749https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3749Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:15:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore shrubland One study evaluated the effects of creating or restoring shrubland on reptile populations. This study was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that areas of restored shrubland had similar reptile and amphibian species richness compared to areas that were not restored. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that areas of restored shrubland had a higher abundance of lizards than areas that were not restored. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3751https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3751Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:28:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore waterways Two studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring waterways on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that restored and pristine streams had similar turtle community composition. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found that restored and pristine streams had a similar abundance of turtles. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that creating new waterways by redirecting flows during forest restoration had mixed effects of reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3754Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:37:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore wetlands Seven studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring wetlands on reptile populations. Six studies were in the USA and one was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that reptile species richness and diversity tended to be lower in a restored wetland compared to an undisturbed wetland. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that created, restored, enhanced and natural wetlands had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness. One site comparison study in the USA found that created wetlands and adjacent natural forest had similar reptile species richness and diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found that a created wetland was used by snapping turtles for egg laying. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that in a restored wetland, 16 snake, six lizard and eight turtle species successfully reproduced. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One site comparison study and three before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in the USA and Kenya found that created or restored wetlands were used by black rat snakes and snapping turtles, turtles, lizards, green grass snakes and terrapins, six or 18 reptile species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3755https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3755Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:41:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or retain deadwood in forest management One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating or retaining deadwood in forest management. This study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that sites where deadwood had been left for many years had a higher abundance of Scardia boletella moths than conventionally managed sites in one of two regions, but the occurrence of Archinemapogon yildizae moths was similar across all sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3873https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3873Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:00:36 +0100
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