Guiding principles for conserving reptiles in Australian temperate agricultural landscapes
Damian R. Michael
A *
A
Abstract
Expansion of agricultural activities has contributed to habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation, leading to biodiversity declines worldwide. Reptiles are an important component of vertebrate diversity in temperate agricultural landscapes but are particularly vulnerable to habitat modification due to their ecological requirements, limited dispersal abilities, and reliance on sensitive microhabitats. However, conservation efforts within agricultural landscapes have largely focused on native vegetation, with restoration efforts focused on high density tree plantings targeting avian species. This narrative review synthesises literature on patterns of reptile diversity in Australian temperate agricultural landscapes to support guiding principles for sustainable farm planning and management. Google Scholar and Web of Science were used to search for ecological literature pertaining to reptile diversity (species richness and abundance) in temperate agricultural landscapes. Main findings were extracted from the abstracts and results sections, summarised and collated into themes representative of different landscape elements or farming practices. Key principles based on the literature include: (1) protecting remnant vegetation and countryside elements; (2) managing vegetation regeneration; (3) implementing sustainable grazing practices; (4) adopting minimum-till and stubble retention farming; (5) reducing herbicide and pesticide use; (6) controlling introduced predators; and (7) restoring critical habitats such as rocks and logs. These guiding principles emphasise the importance of land sharing and sustainable farming practices to improve reptile populations. Addressing the conservation needs of reptiles in agricultural landscapes is critical for biodiversity preservation and requires integrative management strategies that balance agricultural productivity with ecosystem health. While this review focused on Australian temperate agricultural regions, the management actions presented are likely to be applicable to other Mediterranean regions.
Keywords: agriculture, conservation, farming systems, habitat management, land sharing, land sparing, squamates, sustainable farming.
Introduction
The Earth’s surface has been significantly altered through human activities. Habitat destruction, fragmentation and degradation are leading causes of biodiversity loss worldwide (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007), and are implicated in the decline of invertebrates (Martín-Vélez and Abellán 2022), birds (Mortelliti et al. 2010; Negret et al. 2021), mammals (Thornton et al. 2011; Kuipers et al. 2021), fish (Lintermans et al. 2024), frogs (Luedtke et al. 2023), and reptiles (Cox et al. 2022). Land use change associated with vegetation clearing for agriculture, mining and urban expansion are driving population declines (Lambin et al. 2001). Thus, balancing the needs of an increasing human population with biodiversity conservation, presents one of the biggest challenges to humanity (Tilman et al. 2011), along with addressing climate change (Caro et al. 2022). Central to this challenge, is engaging in conservation science research that is prescriptive in solving real-word problems, rather than being purely descriptive (Williams et al. 2020).
Agricultural land covers approximately 40% of the global land surface (Foley et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2024). Thus, implementing sustainable farming practices is paramount in conserving biodiversity and reversing population declines. Agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been developed in many parts of the world to restore biodiversity in landscapes modified by modern agriculture (Boetzl et al. 2021). Such schemes involve paying landholders to modify farming practices with the goal of providing environmental benefits such as increased biodiversity or ecosystem services (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003; Concepcion et al. 2012). However, most studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of AES have focused on vegetation, invertebrate functional groups or guilds of avifauna (Triquet et al. 2024), often with contrasting responses among regions and biota (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003). The response of reptiles to AES has been poorly evaluated, with studies reporting negative or neutral responses (Michael et al. 2014, 2016; Popgeorgiev et al. 2014). Clearly, the merits and benefits of adopting land sharing principals for reptiles in different agricultural landscapes requires further investigation.
Reptiles are a major component of the vertebrate diversity of temperate agricultural landscapes (Kay et al. 2013; Çiçek and Cumhuriyet 2017) and are important for maintaining ecological functions such as nutrient cycling, seed dispersal and energy transfer through their trophic roles as predators and prey (Cortéz-Gómez et al. 2015). However, many reptile populations have declined, with one in five reptile species threatened with extinction (Cox et al. 2022). This pattern is reflected in specious groups such as Scincidae (Chapple et al. 2021) and Serpentes with estimates of up to 50% of snake species threatened in some regions (Filippi and Luiselli 2000; França and Araújo 2006). Reptiles are particularly sensitive to modifications to their environment (Doherty et al. 2020) and have a high risk of extinction due to their ecological requirements, habitat specificity, small range sizes, and low vagility (Böhm et al. 2016; Senior et al. 2021). Furthermore, a high proportion of globally threatened reptiles are not formally protected in conservation reserves (Tolley et al. 2019). During a recent assessment of the conservation status of Australian squamates, one in five threatened species were not represented in a single protected area (Tingley et al. 2019), with many threatened species restricted to private property in agricultural landscapes or known only from single locations (Geyle et al. 2020). In Australia, the risk of extinction for reptiles is further exacerbated by agricultural intensification and broadscale rock removal associated with soil amelioration practices (Michael et al. 2021; O’Sullivan et al. 2024).
One approach to countering the negative impacts of agricultural expansion and intensification is through ecological restoration (Saturday 2018). However, reptiles are rarely considered in restoration programs (Michael et al. 2011; Lindenmayer et al. 2023), which are primarily designed to reverse land degradation, improve conservation outcomes for birds and mammals, or restore ecological functions and ecosystem services through the provision of pollinating insects, decomposers and nutrient recyclers (Boetzl et al. 2021). Furthermore, there are limited resources available for landholders, environmental practitioners or natural resource managers to guide reptile conservation programs in Australian agricultural landscapes (Lindenmayer et al. 2016; Michael et al. 2018).
Methods
Studies on patterns of reptile diversity (e.g. species richness and abundance) in agricultural landscapes (including responses to farm management practices) were reviewed using Google Scholar and Web of Science to gather supporting evidence for informing sustainable farming practices and enhancing reptile fauna in temperate agroecosystems. A narrative framework was chosen over a systematic review as the former allows for more descriptive interpretation of themes within the literature without rigid exclusion criteria. The phrases ‘reptile species richness’ and ‘reptile diversity’ were used in various combinations with the following search terms; habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, habitat degradation, grazing, cropping, introduced predators (including European fox, cat), remnant, revegetation, regrowth, course woody debris (including logs and fallen timber), and rock to search titles, abstracts, and keywords. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on diversity metrics such as species richness and abundance; (2) were conducted in mixed cropping (cereal crops and grains) and grazing (cattle, sheep, goat) enterprises on fertile soil ecosystems (i.e. intensively managed farming enterprises), and (3) located within temperate or semi-arid environments dominated by natural grasslands, grassy woodland, open forest, or savannah-type ecosystems. These regions are characterised by mild wet winters and warm dry summers and represent broad mixed enterprise agricultural land use regions in Australia. In addition, reference lists of reviewed papers were explored for other relevant information. The aim of this study was not to conduct a comprehensive systematic review (or meta-analysis) of the effects of different farming practices on different reptile species, but to distil broad patterns to inform sustainable farming practices. This review focused primarily on Australian studies but was supplemented with international examples where applicable.
Principle 1. Protect remnant vegetation and countryside elements
Over the past two decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of studies examining the response of reptiles to habitat destruction, loss and fragmentation with much of the research being focused on North America, Europe and Australia (Tan et al. 2023). Habitat destruction, loss and fragmentation are often used interchangeably (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007). However, habitat fragmentation consists of two different processes: loss of habitat and fragmentation of existing habitat, with the latter constituting the transformation of continuous areas into discrete habitat patches (Fahrig 2003). Increasingly, studies are treating these two processes as independent (Fahrig 2017), with habitat amount having significantly more influence on patterns of reptile diversity than fragmentation per se. Nevertheless, small, isolated habitat patches and other countryside elements (e.g. paddock trees, wetlands, riparian areas and rocky outcrops) have high conservation value and often support reptile species or assemblages not found in conservation reserves or under land stewardship and covenant agreements (Simpson et al. 2023; Westaway et al. 2024). Given these observed patterns, protecting existing habitat, whether it be large remnants or small isolated habitat patches is paramount to conserving reptile diversity, and is more cost effective and efficient than restoring or creating new habitat (Table 1). This is because reptile diversity is generally depauperate in cleared or derived grassland landscapes (Cunningham et al. 2007; Dorrough et al. 2012) and it may take several decades for some species to benefit from revegetation programs (Lindenmayer et al. 2023).
| Ecosystem | Key findings | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Floodplain forest and temperate grassy woodland | Roadside vegetation and large remnants supported more species than small patches and riparian areas. | Brown et al. (2008) | |
| Poplar box and Acacia woodland | Species richness was higher in woodland areas compared to cleared areas, reptile abundance varied among vegetation types. | Bruton et al. (2015) | |
| Box gum grassy woodland | Reptiles were less likely to occur in landscapes with large areas of tree plantings (a proxy for heavily cleared landscapes). | Cunningham et al. (2007) | |
| Mallee woodland | Reptiles were more likely to occupy square reserves rather than linear roadside strips, but some species (e.g. Lerista punctatovittata) were more abundant on roadsides. Very few species were found in cleared paddocks. | Driscoll (2004) | |
| Buloke woodland | Reptile species richness was influenced by habitat complexity but not patch size. | Hadden and Westbrooke (1996) | |
| Grassy woodland and mallee | Reptile species richness and abundance did not differ between revegetated, remnant and cleared habitats, or between linear strip and patches. | Jellinek et al. (2014) | |
| Savannah and sclerophyll woodland | Reptile species richness was influenced vegetation formations within isolated reserves. | Kitchener et al. (1980) | |
| Subtropical eucalypt and Acacia forest | No relationships between species richness and habitat fragmentation, but species abundance increased with forest extent. | McAlpine et al. (2015) | |
| Box-ironbark forest | Species richness and abundance was higher in large (20/40 ha) patches compared to 10 ha patches. | Mac Nally and Brown (2001) | |
| Granitic woodland | Species richness and diversity was positively correlated patch area and condition of surrounding landscape. Reptile abundance was related to habitat complexity at the site-level. | Michael et al. (2008) | |
| Box gum grassy woodland | Species richness was influenced by habitat type (remnants), landscape context (tree cover) and local-scale habitat attributes. | Pulsford et al. (2017a) | |
| Box gum grassy woodland | Species richness and abundance patterns best described by the continuum model (environmental gradients). | Pulsford et al. (2017b) | |
| Mallee woodland | No difference in species richness between reserves, continuous habitat and isolated habitat fragments but species richness was lowest in cleared paddocks. | Schutz and Driscoll (2008) | |
| Gimlet woodland | Reptile species richness was influenced by woody litter, percent shrub cover and number of trees. | Smith et al. (1996) | |
| Mallee woodland | Habitat specialists are sensitive to habitat loss, but isolated habitat fragments are valuable for supporting habitat generalists. | Simpson et al. (2023) | |
| Mallee woodland | Twice as many species were restricted to conservation parks compared to habitat fragments in farmland. There was a substantial reduction in reptile abundance in farmland fragments. | Williams et al. (2011) |
Despite evidence indicating that reptile diversity declines along gradients of habitat modification, the concept of protecting countryside elements or relictual habitat in modified landscapes (i.e. the matrix) provides a complementary ‘land sharing’ approach to conserving reptiles that extends beyond simply protecting remnant vegetation through land sparing practices (Michael et al. 2016). Key elements of the matrix that are important to reptiles include insular rocky outcrops (Michael et al. 2008, 2010), scattered surface rocks (Michael et al. 2021; O’Sullivan et al. 2023a), fallen timber or coarse woody debris (Manning et al. 2013; Shoo et al. 2014), and unmodified native grasslands (Dorrough et al. 2012; Pulsford et al. 2018; Băncilă et al. 2023) including uncropped pastures that support fragile microhabitats such as invertebrate tunnels (Milne et al. 2003; Michael et al. 2004) or cracking soils. Wetlands (including farm dams) and riparian areas also provide important habitat for mesic-adapted lizards (Farquhar et al. 2024) and freshwater turtles (Chessman 2022) which sustain meta-populations and provide dispersal opportunities. Other keystone elements such as scattered paddock trees have well documented biodiversity values (Law et al. 2000; Manning et al. 2006; Tiang et al. 2021). However, the relative importance of scattered paddock trees in maintaining reptile diversity at local or regional scales remains to be quantified and provides an avenue for future research.
Principle 2. Manage vegetation regeneration and secondary regrowth
Vegetation regeneration and succession are natural processes that plant communities undergo following natural disturbances such as fire, or human-induced disturbances such as logging. In many Mediterranean regions, regrowth or secondary forests regenerate naturally on abandoned agricultural land when human disturbances are removed or lessened (Bowen et al. 2007). Structurally simple vegetation communities, such as grasslands, regenerate quickly while structurally complex forest communities may take centuries to reach climax condition states. Despite the importance of enabling landscapes to regenerate under natural conditions (or through management interventions), successive changes in vegetation do not necessarily result in the recovery of original condition states (Schröder et al. 2005; Jones et al. 2023), or positive conservation outcomes (Luja et al. 2008). For example, Fitch (2006) found 45% of the reptile fauna inhabiting a former grazing property became locally extinct as woody regrowth eliminated bare ground and open grass habitat. Excessive levels of shade resulting from vegetation succession (Michael et al. 2011) or cessation of natural disturbance regimes (Webb et al. 2005) has been implicated in the decline of reptile diversity associated with naturally open, rocky environments. Furthermore, reptile responses to regrowth vary regionally in relation to climate, thermal tolerances and life-history attributes, with species richness in regrowth stands being comparable to old growth in subtropical regions (Bruton et al. 2013) but intermediate between old growth and cleared areas in temperate regions (Michael et al. 2011).
Thinning regrowth or secondary forests to increase solar radiation could be trialled to improve reptile diversity in temperate regions. Stand thinning is a common silvicultural management tool used in forestry operations to enhance reptile diversity (Kutt 1993; Todd and Andrews 2008; Verschuyl et al. 2011; Azor et al. 2015; Eyre et al. 2015; Gonsalves et al. 2018) but has rarely been implemented in temperate woodland vegetation communities. However, in south-eastern Australia, the Greater Sydney Local Land Services have embarked on a project to retore the endangered Cumberland Plains woodland vegetation community on the Defence Establishment Orchard Hills through an overstory and understorey thinning experiment. Preliminary baseline data revealed mean reptile abundance was significant lower in dense regrowth stands than in open cleared areas designated for habitat restoration (Michael and Wright 2023), supporting the agencies goal of removing vegetation to increase solar radiation. In the absence of other disturbance regimes such as ecological burning, thinning dense stands may be a valuable tool for increasing lizard abundance, especially when original climax condition states were structurally open, dominated by grasses with a sparse understory. Thinning experiments in temperate or subtropical ecosystems should, therefore, be guided by climax vegetation condition states, the resident biotic community and the presence of threatened species to minimise perverse outcomes for other taxa (Table 2).
| Ecosystem | Key findings | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tropical forest | Total number of reptiles species and species diversity increased with time since abandonment. | Bowman et al. (1990) | |
| Poplar box and Acacia woodland | Reptile species richness, diversity, dominance and community composition were similar between regrowth and remnant woodlands and were higher than that of cleared land. | Bruton et al. (2013) | |
| Poplar box and Acacia woodland | Species richness, diversity, and abundance were influenced by site-scale structural complexity. | Bruton et al. (2016) | |
| Subtropical and tropical rainforest | In the tropics, reptiles were recorded in old timber plantations plantings but not in regrowth and in few reforested sites in the subtropics. | Kanowski et al. (2006) | |
| Box gum grassy woodland | Patterns of reptile occurrence increased gradually in old growth, regrowth and tree plantings over an 18-year period. | Lindenmayer et al. (2023) | |
| Popular box and Acacia woodland | Reptile abundance, but not species richness, increased with regrowth age and forest spatial extent. | McAlpine et al. (2015) | |
| Box gum grassy woodland | Saxicolous and arboreal species were less abundant in grassy woodland regrowth, whereas Bassian and fossorial species responded positively to woodland regrowth. | Michael et al. (2011) | |
| Various forest types (global) | Secondary forest generally had higher reptile species richness and abundance than human-modified landscapes, but lower species richness and abundance than old-growth forests. | Thompson and Donnelly (2018) |
Principle 3. Manage pasture biomass through sustainable grazing
Grazing by native and introduced herbivores results in the simplification of vegetation structure, particularly grass height and spatial cover, changes in plant species composition, reduced biomass and ecosystem function (Adler et al. 2001; Török et al. 2024). Encouragingly, continuous or set stocking grazing management systems are being replaced with sustainable grazing practices, such as rotational grazing, cell grazing, time-controlled grazing and spell grazing. Irrespective of the system adapted, the main objectives are to manage pasture utilisation effectively, reduce uneven grazing and match stocking rates to the diet quality specific to the type of livestock. Studies on the effect of grazing on reptiles are limited, and although largely based on both natural and modified pastures, prior filtering of species pools may underscore observed correlations with grazing pressure and terrestrial reptile diversity. Equally important are the interactive effects of climate (Rotem et al. 2016) and introduced predators (Knox et al. 2012) which are largely neglected in studies examining the response of reptiles to different grazing regimes. However, most studies to date indicate heavy grazing and set stocking regimes are accompanied by declines in various diversity metrics, with few studies reporting positive relationships with intensive grazing pressure (Table 3).
| Ecosystem | Key findings | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Reptile abundance (and pygopodid abundance) was positively correlated with stocking rate and rotationally grazed pastures. | Brown et al. (2011) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Positive relationships with reptile abundance and sheep stocking rates and no relationship with rotational grazing. | Dorrough et al. (2012) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Reptile abundance, species richness and diversity where highest where grazing intensity was low. | Howland et al. (2014) | |
| Semi-arid savannah woodland | The abundance and species richness of diurnal reptiles were significantly lower on heavily grazed sites compared to lightly grazed sites. | James (2008) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Past grazing practices negatively affected reptile community composition. | Kay et al. (2017) | |
| Chaco savannah woodland (Argentina) | Reptile diversity did not differ between restored woodland and overgrazed sites, but species composition did. | Leynaud and Bucher (2005) | |
| Semi-arid woodland | Reptile abundance and diversity increased with time-since-destocking. | Neilly et al. (2021) | |
| Eucalypt and Acacia savannah woodland | Heavy stocking negatively impacted reptiles and was also the least profitable grazing strategy, resulting in land degradation. | Neilly et al. (2018a) | |
| Tropical semi-arid woodland | Arboreal reptile species were resistant to the impact of grazing, whereas terrestrial reptiles were negatively affected by heavy grazing. | Neilly et al. (2018b) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Grazed paddocks, particularly those with key features such as fences and plantings can provide habitat for reptiles. | Pulsford et al. (2017a) | |
| Gimlet woodland | Disturbance from sheep grazing and trampling had no influence on reptile species richness. | Smith et al. (1996) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Increasing intensity of recent livestock grazing reduced the richness of reptiles and indirectly suppressed the positive effect of native plant richness on reptile richness. | Val et al. (2019) |
Principle 4. Adopt minimum-till and stubble retention practices
Cropland is defined as land used for the cultivation of crops, both temporary (annuals) and permanent (perennials) and may include areas periodically left fallow or used as temporary pasture. Globally, cropland covers approximately 12% of the global land surface and along with agricultural intensification is among one of the major threats to reptiles worldwide (Gibbon et al. 2000; Todd et al. 2010; Biaggini and Corti 2021) with large effects reported from temperate broadleaf and mixed forests (Wang et al. 2021). The occurrence of reptiles within intensively managed landscapes is generally low (Biaggini and Corti 2015; Rotem and Ziv 2016). Reptile occurrence within cropland is dependent on various factors, including distance to source populations (Hansen et al. 2020), crop type, spatial extent, crop heterogeneity, management intensity, and crop orientation (Badillo-Saldaña et al. 2020; Băncilă et al. 2023), as well as life-history attributes (e.g. body size, fitness and dispersal ability) and ecological niche (generalists versus specialist), with species reliant on specific microhabitats being the most imperilled (Michael et al. 2021) (Table 4).
| Ecosystem | Key findings | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Various (Europe) | Reptile species richness was generally negatively correlated with crop extent but was enhanced by crop heterogeneity. | Băncilă et al. (2023) | |
| Broad-leafed forest (Italy) | Most reptiles were recorded in the buffer strips while intensive crops and pastures hosted just one lizard species. | Biaggini and Corti (2015) | |
| Broad-leafed forest (Italy) | The common Italian wall lizard (Podarcis siculus) was present exclusively along the field margins. | Biaggini and Corti (2021) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Pasture height and crop direction influence the movement patterns of an arboreal gecko. | Kay et al. (2016) | |
| Temperate grassland and grassy eucalypt woodland | Translocated geckos moved from cropland towards remnant habitat, but radio-tracked geckos avoided cropland. | Hansen et al. (2020) | |
| Shrubland and grassland (Israel) | Lizards moved from remnant habitat into legume and wheat crops before harvest but not in reverse after harvest. | Rotem and Ziv (2016) | |
| Shrubland and grassland (Israel) | A common lizard species moved from semi-natural patches into fields, but rarely in the opposite direction. Individuals that moved were adults in better body condition than those remaining in patches. | Rotem et al. (2013) |
The seasonal nature of crops (and crop rotation) and the mechanical disturbance to critical ground cover microhabitats are key limiting factors that prevent reptiles from establishing stable populations in cropland (Rotem and Ziv 2016) which are fundamentally ecological traps (Rotem et al. 2013). However, there are some general principles that could facilitate reptile movement and population stability in cropland. These include adopting minimum-till and stubble retention practices to retain suitable ground cover habitat and facilitate long-term occupation. For example, the Condamine earless dragon (Tympanocryptis condaminensis) is a threatened lizard restricted to the Darling Downs region of Australia where it occurs on black cracking soils in remnant and exotic grasslands and croplands. The species has been found in sorghum, maize and sunflower crops and forages in stubble fields (Mitchell et al. 2019). One study found that dragon densities where significantly higher in sorghum stubble fields than in grasslands and rather than using soil cracks they preferred leaf litter for shelter (Starr and Leung 2006). For this species, the reversion of cropland to grazing pasture may result in perverse conservation outcomes.
The movement patterns of reptiles in intensively managed agricultural landscapes can also be enhanced by considering crop direction, such that crop rows facilitate movement rather than acting as barriers. For example, Kay et al. (2016) found that translocated individuals of the southern marbled gecko (Christinus marmoratus) were able to orientate towards habitat in low pasture compared to wheat or canola crops, although movement within crops was significantly oriented along the direction of the crop lines. Rotem and Ziv (2016) also found that adults of a common lizard species in the southern Judea Lowlands moved from remnant habitats into wheat and legume fields prior to harvest but did not move back into remnants following harvest. Overall, studies on reptiles in cropland highlight the importance of creating agricultural mosaics, increasing field margins and adopting zero-tillage practices to improve the permeability of cropping landscapes.
Principle 5. Reduce fertiliser, herbicide and pesticide use
Fertilisers are applied to maintain soil fertility and improving crop yields in agricultural regions worldwide and are classified as inorganic (e.g. nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and compound and mixed fertilisers (NPK)), organic (e.g. manure, compost, green manure and bone/fish meal) and biofertilisers containing living microorganisms. In agricultural regions where soil nutrients are naturally low, the application of fertilisers can increase crop yields and pasture biomass but can also encourage weed growth which reduces habitat quality for reptiles. Several studies from south-eastern Australia have found reptile abundance to decline with increasing soil P levels (Brown et al. 2011; Dorrough et al. 2012). Similarly, herbicides and pesticides are known to cause toxic effects in many reptile species, reducing their fitness and ability to cope with environmental stress (Biaggini et al. 2009; Fasola et al. 2022), and is listed as one of the six major contributors to the decline of reptiles (Gibbons et al. 2000). However, reptiles are rarely considered in environmental risk assessments and more research is required to understand the broader effects of herbicide and pesticide use on different species across regions.
Principle 6. Control introduced predators and feral animals
Introduced exotic predators pose a significant threat to reptiles worldwide. For example, the domestic cat (Felis catus) has been introduced to many parts of the world (including 179,000 islands) where they have been implicated in multiple extinctions (Medina et al. 2011; Li et al. 2014). Feral cats and foxes are the main predators of reptiles in Australia (Stobo-Wilson et al. 2021), although feral pig (Sus scrofa), black rat (Rattus rattus), wolf snake (Lycodon capucinus), and the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) present additional, localised threats to some species (Mitchell et al. 2019). Feral cats were first introduced to Australia during early European settlement and spread quickly across the continent where they present a threat to 25% of Australia’s reptile fauna (Doherty et al. 2017). In highly modified landscapes, it is estimated that 130 million reptiles are killed per year. Adding to this, pet cats are estimated to kill 53 million reptiles per year, totalling almost 650 million reptiles per year by all cats (Legge et al. 2020). The types of reptiles found in cat diets are small ground-dwelling skinks, dragons, legless lizards, geckos and small snakes (Doherty et al. 2015; Read et al. 2024). Foxes further compound the problem by adding another 40 species to the list of reptiles that are depredated (Stobo-Wilson et al. 2021), including egg predation on turtle nests (Spencer and Thompson 2005). Collectively, 697 million reptiles are estimated to be killed by foxes and cats across Australia each year (Stobo-Wilson et al. 2022).
The effects of introduced predator control on reptile diversity has been studied in Australia using baiting programs, exclusion fences and plasticine models to quantify faunal responses and predation risk (Table 5). However, results have been variable and divergent across ecosystems and taxonomic groups with many studies highlighting instances of mesopredator release involving increases in native goanna numbers causing cascading effects on lizard communities (Sutherland et al. 2011; Read and Scoleri 2015; Hu et al. 2019). Some studies on small lizards report no significant effects of fox removal (Risbey et al. 2000), while fox control can reduce nest predation in freshwater turtles (Spencer and Thompson 2005). Although few studies have investigated the effects of managing introduced predators on reptile diversity in agricultural landscapes, controlling introduced predators may have positive benefits for small terrestrial reptiles that inhabit structurally open environments (Braun et al. 2024). Further research would be valuable to understand the response of other egg-laying reptiles, such as Agamids and oviparous snakes, to fox control.
| Ecosystem | Key findings | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperate woodland | Predator attacks on plasticine lizard models were highest at remnant edges, irrespective of adjacent farmland type. | Hansen et al. (2019) | |
| Coastal woodland and lowland forest | Small terrestrial reptile abundance and species richness were influenced by fox suppression but the lace monitor (Varanus varius) increased in abundance. | Hu et al. (2019) | |
| Sandhill shrubland | Abundance of small lizards did not change significantly after the removal of feral animals with geckos declining. | Moseby et al. (2009) | |
| Semi-arid shrubland | Fox baiting had positive effects on the density of diurnal scincid lizards in open grassland, whereas non-baited areas showed higher density of nocturnal gecko lizards. | Olsson et al. (2005) | |
| Shrubland and grassland (New Zealand) | Two skink species increased in abundance in inside a mammal-proof fence and centre of a predator trapping array. | Reardon et al. (2012) | |
| Shrubland-heath | No relationship found between the capture rate of reptiles and changes in predator (cat and fox) counts. | Risbey et al. (2000) | |
| Tropical savannah | There was a significant increase in the abundance of reptiles over a 2-year period in cat-excluded plots. | Stokeld et al. (2018) | |
| Shrubland and grassland (New Zealand) | Lizard counts were higher inside a mammal predator-proof fence compared to a control site. | Wilson et al. (2007) |
Principle 7. Revegetate and restore critical habitat
Revegetation programs rarely include objectives for improving habitat for reptiles in agricultural landscapes (Munro et al. 2007; Michael et al. 2018) and consist mostly of shelter belts, corridors or block-shaped plantings, to maintain or increase productivity of agricultural land through protection and enhancement of soil and water (Kimber et al. 1999). Studies on the response of reptiles to tree plantings are limited and generally report low diversity and slow colonisation rates dominated by widespread habitat generalists (Cunningham et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2015a; Lindenmayer et al. 2023). These patterns conform with the mining rehabilitation literature which suggests reptile species richness, and functional groups, increase with rehabilitation age (Thompson and Thompson 2005; Nichols and Grant 2007; Houston et al. 2018), but are often depauperate when compared to undisturbed sites (Cristescu et al. 2012). However, by incorporating design concepts developed through mining rehabilitation programs, the colonisation of revegetated areas by reptiles in farming landscape could also be improved (Table 6).
| Ecosystem | Key findings | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shrub and grassland (Argentina) | Building rock shelters at disturbed sites increased lizard presence and abundance by improving habitat conditions. | Alvarez and Guida-Johnson (2019) | |
| Box gum woodland | Reptiles were less likely to occur in farming landscapes with large areas of tree plantings due to the lack of remnant vegetation. | Cunningham et al. (2007) | |
| Box gum woodland | Reptile species richness and abundance of common species was increased 9 years after coarse woody debris addition. | Evans et al. (2019) | |
| Box gum woodland | Reptile species richness and counts decreased in revegetated strips with increasing distance from remnant patches. | Jellinek et al. (2014) | |
| Box gum woodland | Reptile diversity was low in tree plantings but increased gradually over an 18-year period. | Lindenmayer et al. (2008) | |
| Box gum woodland | Adding coarse woody debris increased reptile abundance significantly after only 4 years. | Manning et al. (2013) | |
| Hardwood forest (Spain) | Over a 5-year period reptile species richness and abundance increased more at restored sites (log additions) than control area with no artificial refuges. | Márquez-Ferrando et al. (2009) | |
| Grassland | Introduced coarse woody debris was colonised by a wide range of reptiles, including threatened species within 1 year. | Michael et al. (2004) | |
| Box gum woodland | Lizards colonised restored surface rock habitat within 1 year. | McDougall et al. (2016) | |
| Lowland grassland | Within 1 year, reptiles used restored rocks and preferred large 7600–29,000 cm₃, flat rocks. | Palmer et al. (2022) | |
| Scrub and grassland (England) | Viviparous lizards were observed using basking banks within 12 months of construction. | Pickles and Tse-Leon (2024) | |
| Dry sclerophyll forest | Canopy removal increased reptile species richness, the proportion of shelter sites used by reptiles, and relative abundances of five species that prefer sun-exposed habitats. | Pike et al. (2011) | |
| Box gum woodland | The southern rainbow skink (Carlia tetradactyla) was more abundant in tree plantings than in cleared farmland. | Pulsford et al. (2017a) | |
| Tropical rainforest | After 1 year, the addition of course woody debris within restoration plantings adjacent to remnant forest increased reptile abundance and promoted colonisation of the log-specialist prickly skink (Gnypetoscincus queenslandiae). | Shoo et al. (2014) | |
| Box gum woodland | The addition of rocks in farmland increased reptile species richness and abundance. | O’Sullivan et al. (2023b) |
Key principals that should be considered during the design phase include: (1) incorporating a variety of plant species (including ground cover and understorey species) to create structural diversity (Lancaster et al. 2012; Mizsei et al. 2020); (2) incorporating endemic species; (3) spacing plants widely to reduce stem density and shade levels (Michael et al. 2011); (4) augment remnant habitat and creating corridors to link habitat features; (5) adding keystone resources such as coarse woody debris (Craig et al. 2011; Manning et al. 2013), surface rocks (O’Sullivan et al. 2023b), artificial refuges (Michael et al. 2004), and nest boxes to provide supplementary habitat for cavity-dependent reptiles (McComb and Noble 1981; Menkhorst 1984; Fokidis and Risch 2005; Smith et al. 2015b); and (6) improving the agricultural matrix by modifying livestock grazing pressure and crop orientation to enhance movement patterns and colonisation opportunities (Driscoll 2004; Kay et al. 2018; Hansen et al. 2020). Reptile diversity can also be improved by thinning existing densely planted areas to increase the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground layer (Craig et al. 2010) and excluding grazing pressure to maintain sufficient ground cover vegetation (Lindenmayer et al. 2018).
Future research directions
This review synthesises ecological literature on patterns of reptile diversity in agricultural landscapes to inform sustainable farming practices. However, further research is urgently required as farming systems’ change, and new practices emerge. Future research should focus on understanding reptile responses to different agricultural practices, such as organic farming, agroforestry, and regenerative agriculture, to determine their effectiveness in enhancing reptile populations. Understanding how different species, taxonomic groups or guilds respond to habitat management and interventions such as ground cover restoration, or rock and woody debris additions, would improve restoration programs. Additionally, investigating landscape connectivity, reptile movement patterns and genetic diversity would provide deeper insights into the effects of habitat fragmentation and help identify strategies for enhancing key reptile habitat. This may include trialling relocations of common lizard species that have become extirpated from habitat patches to better understand the mechanisms driving population declines. Further research on the impact of introduced predators is also warranted to improve targeted pest control strategies. Finally, long-term monitoring and standardised data collection protocols should be established in agricultural landscapes to determine temporal trends in reptile populations.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land on which this study was conducted and pays respects to Elders past, present and emerging. Many of the ideas and themes presented in this study benefited from numerous conversations and shared field experiences with colleagues past and present, and to the many passionate landholders striving towards sustainable farming enterprises.
References
Adler P, Raff D, Lauenroth W (2001) The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation. Oecologia 128, 465-479.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Alvarez LM, Guida-Johnson B (2019) Habitat restoration for endemic lizards in an oilfield in Payunia, Argentina. Ecological Restoration 37(4), 217-221.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Azor JS, Santos X, Pleguezuelos JM (2015) Conifer-plantation thinning restores reptile biodiversity in Mediterranean landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 354, 185-189.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Badillo-Saldaña LM, Castellanos I, Ramírez-Bautista A (2020) How do crop area and management intensity influence tropical lizard species diversity? Tropical Conservation Science 13, 1940082920910999.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Băncilă RI, Lattuada M, Sillero N (2023) Distribution of amphibians and reptiles in agricultural landscape across Europe. Landscape Ecology 38(3), 861-874.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Biaggini M, Corti C (2015) Reptile assemblages across agricultural landscapes: where does biodiversity hide? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 38(2), 163-174.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Biaggini M, Corti C (2021) Occurrence of lizards in agricultural land and implications for conservation. The Herpetological Journal 31(2), 77-84.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Biaggini M, Berti R, Corti C (2009) Different habitats, different pressures? Analysis of escape behaviour and ectoparasite load in Podarcis sicula (Lacertidae) populations in different agricultural habitats. Amphibia-Reptilia 30(4), 453-461.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Boetzl FA, Krauss J, Heinze J, Hoffmann H, Juffa J, König S, Krimmer E, Prante M, Martin EA, Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I (2021) A multitaxa assessment of the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(10), e2016038118.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Böhm M, Williams R, Bramhall HR, McMillan KM, Davidson AD, Garcia A, Bland LM, Bielby J, Collen B (2016) Correlates of extinction risk in squamate reptiles: the relative importance of biology, geography, threat and range size. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25(4), 391-405.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bowen ME, McAlpine CA, House APN, Smith GC (2007) Regrowth forests on abandoned agricultural land: a review of their habitat values for recovering forest fauna. Biological Conservation 140(3–4), 273-296.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bowman DMJS, Woinarski JCZ, Sands DPA, Wells A, McShane VJ (1990) Slash-and-burn agriculture in the wet coastal lowlands of Papua New Guinea: response of birds, butterflies and reptiles. Journal of Biogeography 17(3), 227-239.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Braun S, Ritchie EG, Doherty TS, Nimmo DG (2024) The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is the dominant predator of lizard models in a semi-arid landscape, and predation risk is reduced by vegetation cover. Austral Ecology 49(5), e13530.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brown GW, Bennett AF, Potts JM (2008) Regional faunal decline – reptile occurrence in fragmented rural landscapes of south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 35(1), 8-18.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brown GW, Dorrough JW, Ramsey DSL (2011) Landscape and local influences on patterns of reptile occurrence in grazed temperate woodlands of southern Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 103(3–4), 277-288.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bruton MJ, McAlpine CA, Maron M (2013) Regrowth woodlands are valuable habitat for reptile communities. Biological Conservation 165, 95-103.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bruton MJ, Maron M, Levin N, McAlpine CA (2015) Testing the relevance of binary, mosaic and continuous landscape conceptualisations to reptiles in regenerating dryland landscapes. Landscape Ecology 30(4), 715-728.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bruton MJ, Maron M, Franklin CE, McAlpine CA (2016) The relative importance of habitat quality and landscape context for reptiles in regenerating landscapes. Biological Conservation 193, 37-47.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Caro T, Rowe Z, Berger J, Wholey P, Dobson A (2022) An inconvenient misconception: climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss. Conservation Letters 15(3), e12868.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Chapple D, Roll U, Böhm M, Aguilar R, Amey A, Austin CC, Baling M, Barley AJ, Bates MF, Bauer AM, Blackburn DG, Bowles P, Brown RM, Chandramouli SR, Chirio L, Cogger H, Colli GR, Conradie W, Couper PJ, Cowan MA, Craig MD, Das I, Datta-Roy A, Dickman CR, Ellis RJ, Fenner AL, Ford S, Ganesh SR, Gardner MG, Geissler P, Gillespie GR, Glaw F, Greenlees MJ, Griffith OW, Grismer LL, Haines ML, Harris DJ, Hedges SB, Hitchmough RA, Hoskin CJ, Hutchinson MN, Ineich I, Janssen J, Johnston GR, Karin BR, Keogh JS, Kraus F, LeBreton M, Lymberakis P, Masroor R, McDonald PJ, Mecke S, Melville J, Melzer S, Michael DR, Miralles A, Mitchell NJ, Nelson NJ, Nguyen TQ, de Campos Nogueira C, Ota H, Pafilis P, Pauwels OSG, Perera A, Pincheira-Donoso D, Reed RN, Ribeiro-Júnior MA, Riley JL, Rocha S, Rutherford PL, Sadlier RA, Shacham B, Shea GM, Shine R, Slavenko A, Stow A, Sumner J, Tallowin OJS, Teale R, Torres-Carvajal O, Trape J-F, Uetz P, Ukuwela KDB, Valentine L, Van Dyke JU, Van Winkel D, Vasconcelos R, Vences M, Wagner P, Wapstra E, While GM, Whiting MJ, Whittington CM, Wilson S, Ziegler T, Tingley R, Meiri S (2021) Conservation status of the world’s skinks (Scincidae): taxonomic and geographic patterns in extinction risk. Biological Conservation 257, 109101.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Chessman BC (2022) The value of artificial farm ponds to Australian eastern long-necked turtles. Hydrobiologia 849(1), 113-120.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Concepcion ED, Díaz M, Kleijn D, Baldi A, Batary P, Clough Y, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2012) Interactive effects of landscape context constrain the effectiveness of local agri-environmental management. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(3), 695-705.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cortéz-Gómez AM, Ruiz-Agudelo CA, Valencia-Aguilar A, Ladle RJ (2015) Ecological functions of neotropical amphibians and reptiles: a review. Universitas Scientiarum 20(2), 229-245.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cox N, Young BE, Bowles P, Fernandez M, Marin J, Rapacciuolo G, Böhm M, Brooks TM, Hedges SB, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Jenkins RKB, Tognelli MF, Alexander GJ, Allison A, Ananjeva NB, Auliya M, Avila LJ, Chapple DG, Cisneros-Heredia DF, Cogger HG, Colli GR, de Silva A, Eisemberg CC, Els J, Fong GA, Grant TD, Hitchmough RA, Iskandar DT, Kidera N, Martins M, Meiri S, Mitchell NJ, Molur S, Nogueira CdeC, Ortiz JC, Penner J, Rhodin AGJ, Rivas GA, Rödel M-O, Roll U, Sanders KL, Santos-Barrera G, Shea GM, Spawls S, Stuart BL, Tolley KA, Trape J-F, Vidal MA, Wagner P, Wallace BP, Xie Y (2022) A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods. Nature 605, 285-290.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Craig MD, Hobbs RJ, Grigg AH, Garkaklis MJ, Grant CD, Fleming PA, Hardy GESJ (2010) Do thinning and burning sites revegetated after bauxite mining improve habitat for terrestrial vertebrates? Restoration Ecology 18(3), 300-310.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Craig MD, Benkovic AM, Grigg AH, Hardy GESJ, Fleming PA, Hobbs RJ (2011) How many mature microhabitats does a slow-recolonising reptile require? Implications for restoration of bauxite minesites in south-western Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 59(1), 9-17.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cristescu RH, Frère C, Banks PB (2012) A review of fauna in mine rehabilitation in Australia: current state and future directions. Biological Conservation 149(1), 60-72.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB, Crane M, Michael D, MacGregor C (2007) Reptile and arboreal marsupial response to replanted vegetation in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Applications 17(2), 609-619.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Doherty TS, Davis RA, van Etten EJB, Algar D, Collier N, Dickman CR, Edwards G, Masters P, Palmer R, Robinson S (2015) A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia. Journal of Biogeography 42(5), 964-975.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Doherty TS, Dickman CR, Johnson CN, Legge SM, Ritchie EG, Woinarski JCZ (2017) Impacts and management of feral cats Felis catus in Australia. Mammal Review 47(2), 83-97.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Doherty TS, Balouch S, Bell K, Burns TJ, Feldman A, Fist C, Garvey TF, Jessop TS, Meiri S, Driscoll DA (2020) Reptile responses to anthropogenic habitat modification: a global meta-analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 29(7), 1265-1279.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dorrough J, McIntyre S, Brown G, Stol J, Barrett G, Brown A (2012) Differential responses of plants, reptiles and birds to grazing management, fertilizer and tree clearing. Austral Ecology 37(5), 569-582.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Driscoll DA (2004) Extinction and outbreaks accompany fragmentation of a reptile community. Ecological Applications 14(1), 220-240.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Evans MJ, Newport JS, Manning AD (2019) A long-term experiment reveals strategies for the ecological restoration of reptiles in scattered tree landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 28(11), 2825-2843.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Eyre TJ, Ferguson DJ, Kennedy M, Rowland J, Maron M (2015) Long term thinning and logging in Australian cypress pine forest: changes in habitat attributes and response of fauna. Biological Conservation 186, 83-96.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34(1), 487-515.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48(1), 1-23.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Farquhar JE, Wotherspoon L, Porter H, Chapple DG (2024) Habitat loss and degradation reduce the abundance of the glossy grass skink, Pseudemoia rawlinsoni. Wildlife Research 51(3), WR23102.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fasola E, Biaggini M, Ortiz-Santaliestra ME, Costa S, Santos B, Lopes I, Corti C (2022) Assessing stress response in lizards from agroecosystems with different management practices. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 108, 196-203.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Filippi E, Luiselli L (2000) Status of the Italian snake fauna and assessment of conservation threats. Biological Conservation 93(2), 219-225.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16(3), 265-280.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fitch HS (2006) Collapse of a fauna: Reptiles and turtles of the University of Kansas Natural History Reservation. Journal of Kansas Herpetology 17, 10-13.
| Google Scholar |
Fokidis HB, Risch TS (2005) The use of nest boxes to sample arboreal vertebrates. Southeastern Naturalist 4(3), 447-458.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734), 570-574.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
França FGR, Araújo AFB (2006) The conservation status of snakes in central Brazil. South American Journal of Herpetology 1(1), 25-36.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Geyle HM, Tingley R, Amey AP, Cogger H, Couper PJ, Cowan M, Craig MD, Doughty P, Driscoll DA, Ellis RJ, Emery J-P, Fenner A, Gardner MG, Garnett ST, Gillespie GR, Greenlees MJ, Hoskin CJ, Keogh JS, Lloyd R, Melville J, McDonald PJ, Michael DR, Mitchell NJ, Sanderson C, Shea GM, Sumner J, Wapstra E, Woinarski JCZ, Chapple DG (2020) Reptiles on the brink: identifying the Australian terrestrial snake and lizard species most at risk of extinction. Pacific Conservation Biology 27(1), 3-12.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gibbon JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden Y, Poppy S, Winne CT (2000) The Global Decline of Reptiles, Déjà Vu Amphibians: Reptile species are declining on a global scale. Six significant threats to reptile populations are habitat loss and degradation, introduced invasive species, environmental pollution, disease, unsustainable use, and global climate change. BioScience 50(8), 653-666.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gonsalves L, Law B, Brassil T, Waters C, Toole I, Tap P (2018) Ecological outcomes for multiple taxa from silvicultural thinning of regrowth forest. Forest Ecology and Management 425, 177-188.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hadden SA, Westbrooke ME (1996) Habitat relationships of the herpetofauna of remnant buloke woodlands of the Wimmera Plains, Victoria. Wildlife Research 23(3), 363-372.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hansen NA, Sato CF, Michael DR, Lindenmayer DB, Driscoll DA (2019) Predation risk for reptiles is highest at remnant edges in agricultural landscapes. The Journal of Applied Ecology 56(1), 31-43.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hansen NA, Driscoll DA, Michael DR, Lindenmayer DB (2020) Movement patterns of an arboreal gecko in fragmented agricultural landscapes reveal matrix avoidance. Animal Conservation 23(1), 48-59.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Houston WA, Melzer A, Black RL (2018) Recovery of reptile, amphibian and mammal assemblages in Australian post-mining landscapes following open-cut coal mining. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland, The 123, 31-47.
| Google Scholar |
Howland B, Stojanovic D, Gordon IJ, Manning AD, Fletcher D, Lindenmayer DB (2014) Eaten out of house and home: impacts of grazing on ground-dwelling reptiles in Australian grasslands and grassy woodlands. PLoS ONE 9(12), e105966.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Hu Y, Gillespie G, Jessop TS (2019) Variable reptile responses to introduced predator control in southern Australia. Wildlife Research 46(1), 64-75.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
James CD (2008) Response of vertebrates to fenceline contrasts in grazing intensity in semi-arid woodlands of eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 28(2), 137-151.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jellinek S, Parris KM, McCarthy MA, Wintle BA, Driscoll DA (2014) Reptiles in restored agricultural landscapes: the value of linear strips, patches and habitat condition. Animal Conservation 17(6), 544-554.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jones CS, Thomas FM, Michael DR, Fraser H, Gould E, Begley J, Wilson J, Vesk PA, Rumpff L (2023) What state of the world are we in? Targeted monitoring to detect transitions in vegetation restoration projects. Ecological Applications 33(1), e2728.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Kanowski JJ, Reis TM, Catterall CP, Piper SD (2006) Factors affecting the use of reforested sites by reptiles in cleared rainforest landscapes in tropical and subtropical Australia. Restoration Ecology 14(1), 67-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kay GM, Michael DR, Crane M, Okada S, MacGregor C, Florance D, Trengove D, McBurney L, Blair D, Lindenmayer DB (2013) A list of reptiles and amphibians from Box Gum Grassy Woodlands in south-eastern Australia. Check List 9(3), 476-481.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kay GM, Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB, Pulsford SA, Mortelliti A (2016) Pasture height and crop direction influence reptile movement in an agricultural matrix. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 235, 164-171.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kay GM, Mortelliti A, Tulloch A, Barton P, Florance D, Cunningham SA, Lindenmayer DB (2017) Effects of past and present livestock grazing on herpetofauna in a landscape-scale experiment. Conservation Biology 31(2), 446-458.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Kay GM, Tulloch A, Barton PS, Cunningham SA, Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB (2018) Species co-occurrence networks show reptile community reorganization under agricultural transformation. Ecography 41(1), 113-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kitchener DJ, Chapman A, Dell J, Muir BG, Palmer M (1980) Lizard assemblage and reserve size and structure in the Western Australian wheatbelt – some implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 17(1), 25-62.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40(6), 947-969.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Knox CD, Cree A, Seddon PJ (2012) Direct and indirect effects of grazing by introduced mammals on a native, arboreal gecko (Naultinus gemmeus). Journal of Herpetology 46(2), 145-152.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kuipers KJJ, Hilbers JP, Garcia-Ulloa J, Graae BJ, May R, Verones F, Huijbregts MAJ, Schipper AM (2021) Habitat fragmentation amplifies threats from habitat loss to mammal diversity across the world’s terrestrial ecoregions. One Earth 4(10), 1505-1513.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skånes H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11(4), 261-269.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lancaster ML, Gardner MG, Fitch AJ, Ansari TH, Smyth AK (2012) A direct benefit of native saltbush revegetation for an endemic lizard (Tiliqua rugosa) in southern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 60(3), 192-198.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Law BS, Chidel M, Turner G (2000) The use by wildlife of paddock trees in farmland. Pacific Conservation Biology 6(2), 130-143.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Legge S, Woinarski JCZ, Dickman CR, Murphy BP, Woolley L-A, Calver MC (2020) We need to worry about Bella and Charlie: the impacts of pet cats on Australian wildlife. Wildlife Research 47(8), 523-539.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Leynaud GC, Bucher EH (2005) Restoration of degraded Chaco woodlands: effects on reptile assemblages. Forest Ecology and Management 213(1–3), 384-390.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Li B, Belasen A, Pafilis P, Bednekoff P, Foufopoulos J (2014) Effects of feral cats on the evolution of anti-predator behaviours in island reptiles: insights from an ancient introduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1788), 20140339.
| Google Scholar |
Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, MacGregor C, Crane M, Michael D, Fischer J, Montague-Drake R, Felton A, Manning A (2008) Temporal changes in vertebrates during landscape transformation: a large-scale “natural experiment”. Ecological Monographs 78(4), 567-590.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Crane M, Michael D, Sato C (2018) Biodiversity benefits of vegetation restoration are undermined by livestock grazing. Restoration Ecology 26(6), 1157-1164.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lindenmayer DB, Florance D, Smith D, Crane C, Siegrist A, Lang E, Crane M, Michael DR, Scheele BC, Evans MJ (2023) Temporal trends in reptile occurrence among temperate old-growth, regrowth and replanted woodlands. PLoS ONE 18(9), e0291641.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Lintermans M, Lutz M, Whiterod NS, Gruber B, Hammer MP, Kennard MJ, Morgan DL, Raadik TA, Unmack P, Brooks S, Ebner BC, Gilligan D, Butler GL, Moore G, Brown C, Freeman R, Kerezsy A, Bice CM, Le Feuvre MC, Beatty S, Arthington AH, Koehn J, Larson HK, Coleman R, Mathwin R, Pearce L, Tonkin Z, Bruce A, Espinoza T, Kern P, Lieschke JA, Martin K, Sparks J, Stoessel DJ, Wedderburn SD, Allan H, Clunie P, Cockayne B, Ellis I, Hardie S, Koster W, Moy K, Roberts D, Schmarr D, Sharley J, Sternberg D, Zukowski S, Walsh C, Zampatti B, Shelley JJ, Sayer C, Chapple DG (2024) Troubled waters in the land down under: Pervasive threats and high extinction risks demand urgent conservation actions to protect Australia’s native freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation 300, 110843.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Liu X, Zhu P, Liu S, Yu L, Wang Y, Du Z, Peng D, Aksoy E, Lu H, Gong P (2024) Global cropland expansion enhances cropping potential and reduces its inequality among countries. Earth System Dynamics 15(3), 817-828.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Luedtke JA, Chanson J, Neam K, Hobin L, Maciel AO, Catenazzi A, Borzée A, Hamidy A, Aowphol A, Jean A, et al. (2023) Ongoing declines for the world’s amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature 622, 308-314.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Luja VH, Herrando-Pérez S, González-Solís D, Luiselli L (2008) Secondary rain forests are not havens for reptile species in tropical Mexico. Biotropica 40(6), 747-757.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mac Nally R, Brown GW (2001) Reptiles and habitat fragmentation in the box-ironbark forests of central Victoria, Australia: predictions, compositional change and faunal nestedness. Oecologia 128(1), 116-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees are keystone structures – implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 132(3), 311-321.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Manning AD, Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB (2013) Bringing forward the benefits of coarse woody debris in ecosystem recovery under different levels of grazing and vegetation density. Biological Conservation 157, 204-214.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Márquez-Ferrando R, Pleguezuelos JM, Santos X, Ontiveros D, Fernández-Cardenete JR (2009) Recovering the reptile community after the mine-tailing accident of Aznalcóllar (Southwestern Spain). Restoration Ecology 17(5), 660-667.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Martín-Vélez V, Abellán P (2022) Effects of climate change on the distribution of threatened invertebrates in a Mediterranean hotspot. Insect Conservation and Diversity 15(3), 370-379.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
McAlpine CA, Bowen ME, Smith GC, Gramotnev G, Smith AG, Cascio AL, Goulding W, Maron M (2015) Reptile abundance, but not species richness, increases with regrowth age and spatial extent in fragmented agricultural landscapes of eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 184, 174-181.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
McComb WC, Noble RE (1981) Herpetofaunal use of natural tree cavities and nest boxes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9(4), 261-267.
| Google Scholar |
McDougall A, Milner RN, Driscoll DA, Smith AL (2016) Restoration rocks: integrating abiotic and biotic habitat restoration to conserve threatened species and reduce fire fuel load. Biodiversity and Conservation 25(8), 1529-1542.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Medina FM, Bonnaud E, Vidal E, Tershy BR, Zavaleta ES, Josh Donlan C, Keitt BS, Le Corre M, Horwath SV, Nogales M (2011) A global review of the impacts of invasive cats on island endangered vertebrates. Global Change Biology 17(11), 3503-3510.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Menkhorst P (1984) Use of nest boxes by forest vertebrates in Gippsland: acceptance, preference and demand. Australian Wildlife Research 11(2), 255-264.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Lunt ID, Robinson WA (2004) Enhancing fauna habitat in grazed native grasslands and woodlands: use of artificially placed log refuges by fauna. Wildlife Research 31(1), 65-71.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB (2008) A forgotten habitat? Granite inselbergs conserve reptile diversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(6), 1742-1752.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB (2010) Microhabitat relationships among five lizard species associated with granite outcrops in fragmented agricultural landscapes of south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 35(2), 214-225.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB (2011) Regrowth and revegetation in temperate Australia presents a conservation challenge for reptile fauna in agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation 144(1), 407-415.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Wood JT, Crane M, Montague-Drake R, Lindenmayer DB (2014) How effective are agri-environment schemes for protecting and improving herpetofaunal diversity in Australian endangered woodland ecosystems? Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2), 494-504.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Wood JT, O’Loughlin T, Lindenmayer DB (2016) Influence of land sharing and land sparing strategies on patterns of vegetation and terrestrial vertebrate richness and occurrence in Australian endangered eucalypt woodlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 227, 24-32.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Crane M, Florance D, Lindenmayer DB (2018) Revegetation, restoration and reptiles in rural landscapes: insights from long-term monitoring programmes in the temperate eucalypt woodlands of south-eastern Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 19(1), 32-38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Michael DR, Moore H, Wassens S, Craig MD, Tingley R, Chapple DG, O’Sullivan J, Hobbs RJ, Nimmo DG (2021) Rock removal associated with agricultural intensification will exacerbate the loss of reptile diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 58(7), 1557-1565.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Milne T, Bull CM, Hutchinson MN (2003) Use of burrows by the endangered pygmy blue-tongue lizard, Tiliqua adelaidensis (Scincidae). Wildlife Research 30(5), 523-528.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mizsei E, Fejes Z, Malatinszky Á, Lengyel S, Vadász C (2020) Reptile responses to vegetation structure in a grassland restored for an endangered snake. Community Ecology 21(2), 203-212.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mortelliti A, Fagiani S, Battisti C, Capizzi D, Boitani L (2010) Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on forest-dependent birds. Diversity and Distributions 16(6), 941-951.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Moseby KE, Hill BM, Read JL (2009) Arid Recovery – a comparison of reptile and small mammal populations inside and outside a large rabbit, cat and fox-proof exclosure in arid South Australia. Austral Ecology 34(2), 156-169.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Munro NT, Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Faunal response to revegetation in agricultural areas of Australia: a review. Ecological Management & Restoration 8(3), 199-207.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Negret PJ, Maron M, Fuller RA, Possingham HP, Watson JE, Simmonds JS (2021) Deforestation and bird habitat loss in Colombia. Biological Conservation 257, 109044.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Neilly H, O’Reagain P, Vanderwal J, Schwarzkopf L (2018a) Profitable and sustainable cattle grazing strategies support reptiles in tropical savanna rangeland. Rangeland Ecology & Management 71(2), 205-212.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Neilly H, Nordberg EJ, VanDerWal J, Schwarzkopf L (2018b) Arboreality increases reptile community resistance to disturbance from livestock grazing. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(2), 786-799.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Neilly H, Ward M, Cale P (2021) Converting rangelands to reserves: small mammal and reptile responses 24 years after domestic livestock grazing removal. Austral Ecology 46(7), 1112-1124.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nichols OG, Grant CD (2007) Vertebrate fauna recolonization of restored bauxite mines – key findings from almost 30 years of monitoring and research. Restoration Ecology 15(S4), S116-S126.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Olsson M, Wapstra E, Swan G, Snaith E, Clarke R, Madsen T (2005) Effects of long-term fox baiting on species composition and abundance in an Australian lizard community. Austral Ecology 30(8), 899-905.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
O’Sullivan JL, Foster CN, Michael DR, Blanchard W, Lindenmayer DB (2023a) Factors affecting overwintering retreat-site selection in reptiles in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology 38(5), 1177-1189.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
O’Sullivan JL, Foster CN, Blanchard W, Florance D, Michael DR, Lindenmayer DB (2023b) Reversing habitat loss: an experimental test of the interactive effects of grazing exclusion and surface rock restoration on reptile conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 60(9), 1778-1789.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
O’Sullivan JL, Michael DR, Foster CN, Florance D, Lindenmayer DB (2024) Management of bushrocks in agricultural landscapes for reptile conservation. Australian Zoologist 43(4), 615-623.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Palmer A, Milner RNC, Howland B, Gibbons P, Kay GM, Sato CF (2022) Rock supplementation as an ecological restoration strategy for temperate grassland reptiles. Austral Ecology 47(7), 1402-1414.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pickles BJ, Tse-Leon J (2024) Impacts of the installation of basking banks on four UK reptile species in a before–after control–intervention experiment. Conservation Science and Practice 7(1), e13282.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pike DA, Webb JK, Shine R (2011) Removing forest canopy cover restores a reptile assemblage. Ecological Applications 21(1), 274-280.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Popgeorgiev G, Tzankov N, Kornilev YV, Plachiyski D, Naumov B, Stoyanov A (2014) Changes in agri-environmental practices pose a threat to the herpetofauna: a case study from Besaparski Ridove Special Protection Area (Natura 2000), southern Bulgaria. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 5, 157-169.
| Google Scholar |
Pulsford SA, Driscoll DA, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB (2017a) Remnant vegetation, plantings and fences are beneficial for reptiles in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(6), 1710-1719.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pulsford SA, Lindenmayer DB, Driscoll DA (2017b) Reptiles and frogs conform to multiple conceptual landscape models in an agricultural landscape. Diversity and Distributions 23(12), 1408-1422.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pulsford SA, Barton PS, Driscoll DA, Kay GM, Lindenmayer DB (2018) Reptiles and frogs use most land cover types as habitat in a fine-grained agricultural landscape. Austral Ecology 43(5), 502-513.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Read JL, Scoleri V (2015) Ecological implications of reptile mesopredator release in arid South Australia. Journal of Herpetology 49(1), 64-69.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Read JL, Moseby KE, McGregor HW (2024) Better to bluff than run: conservation implications of feral-cat prey selectivity. Wildlife Research 51(6), WR23138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Reardon JT, Whitmore N, Holmes KM, Judd LM, Hutcheon AD, Norbury G, Mackenzie DI (2012) Predator control allows critically endangered lizards to recover on mainland New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36(2), 141-150.
| Google Scholar |
Risbey DA, Calver MC, Short J, Bradley JS, Wright IW (2000) The impact of cats and foxes on the small vertebrate fauna of Heirisson Prong, Western Australia. II. A field experiment. Wildlife Research 27(3), 223-235.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rotem G, Ziv Y (2016) Crop diversity and rotation may increase dispersal opportunities of reptiles in a heterogeneous agroecosystem. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 235, 32-37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rotem G, Ziv Y, Giladi I, Bouskila A (2013) Wheat fields as an ecological trap for reptiles in a semiarid agroecosystem. Biological Conservation 167, 349-353.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Rotem G, Gavish Y, Shacham B, Giladi I, Bouskila A, Ziv Y (2016) Combined effects of climatic gradient and domestic livestock grazing on reptile community structure in a heterogeneous agroecosystem. Oecologia 180, 231-242.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Saturday A (2018) Restoration of degraded agricultural land: a review. Journal of Environment and Health Science 4(2), 44-51.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Schröder A, Persson L, De Roos AM (2005) Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states: a review. Oikos 110(1), 3-19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Schutz AJ, Driscoll DA (2008) Common reptiles unaffected by connectivity or condition in a fragmented farming landscape. Austral Ecology 33(5), 641-652.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Senior AF, Böhm M, Johnstone CP, McGee MD, Meiri S, Chapple DG, Tingley R (2021) Correlates of extinction risk in Australian squamate reptiles. Journal of Biogeography 48(9), 2144-2152.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Shoo LP, Wilson R, Williams YM, Catterall CP (2014) Putting it back: woody debris in young restoration plantings to stimulate return of reptiles. Ecological Management & Restoration 15(1), 84-87.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Simpson REL, Nimmo DG, Wright LJ, Wassens S, Michael DR (2023) Decline in semi-arid reptile occurrence following habitat loss and fragmentation. Wildlife Research 51(1), WR23034.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Smith GT, Arnold GW, Sarre S, Abensperg-Traun M, Steven DE (1996) The effect of habitat fragmentation and livestock grazing on animal communities in remnants of gimlet Eucalyptus salubris woodland in the Western Australian wheatbelt. II. Lizards. Journal of Applied Ecology 33(6), 1302-1310.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Smith GC, Lewis T, Hogan LD (2015a) Fauna community trends during early restoration of alluvial open forest/woodland ecosystems on former agricultural land. Restoration Ecology 23(6), 787-799.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Smith GC, Hogan LD, Franks A, Franks S (2015b) Nest boxes in planted and regrowth forest red-gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm.) ecosystems. Ecological Management & Restoration 16(2), 153-155.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Spencer R-J, Thompson MB (2005) Experimental analysis of the impact of foxes on freshwater turtle populations. Conservation Biology 19(3), 845-854.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Starr CR, Leung LK-P (2006) Habitat use by the Darling Downs population of the grassland earless dragon: implications for conservation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4), 897-903.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stobo-Wilson AM, Murphy BP, Legge SM, Chapple DG, Crawford HM, Dawson SJ, Dickman CR, Doherty TS, Fleming PA, Gentle M, Newsome TM, Palmer R, Rees MW, Ritchie EG, Speed J, Stuart J-M, Thompson E, Turpin J, Woinarski JCZ (2021) Reptiles as food: predation of Australian reptiles by introduced red foxes compounds and complements predation by cats. Wildlife Research 48(5), 470-480.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stobo-Wilson AM, Murphy BP, Legge SM, Caceres-Escobar H, Chapple DG, Crawford HM, Dawson SJ, Dickman CR, Doherty TS, Fleming PA, Garnett ST, Gentle M, Newsome TM, Palmer R, Rees MW, Ritchie EG, Speed J, Stuart J-M, Suarez-Castro AF, Thompson E, Tulloch A, Turpin JM, Woinarski JCZ, Brito J (2022) Counting the bodies: estimating the numbers and spatial variation of Australian reptiles, birds and mammals killed by two invasive mesopredators. Diversity and Distributions 28, 976-991.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stokeld D, Fisher A, Gentles T, Hill BM, Woinarski JCZ, Young S, Gillespie GR (2018) Rapid increase of Australian tropical savanna reptile abundance following exclusion of feral cats. Biological Conservation 225, 213-221.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sutherland DR, Glen AS, de Tores PJ (2011) Could controlling mammalian carnivores lead to mesopredator release of carnivorous reptiles? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278(1706), 641-648.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Tan W, Herrel A, Rödder D (2023) A global analysis of habitat fragmentation research in reptiles and amphibians: what have we done so far? Biodiversity and Conservation 32(2), 439-468.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thompson ME, Donnelly MA (2018) Effects of secondary forest succession on amphibians and reptiles: a review and meta-analysis. Copeia 106(1), 10-19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thompson GG, Thompson SA (2005) Mammals or reptiles, as surveyed by pit-traps, as bio-indicators of rehabilitation success for mine sites in the goldfields region of Western Australia? Pacific Conservation Biology 11(4), 268-286.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) The relative influence of habitat loss and fragmentation: do tropical mammals meet the temperate paradigm? Ecological Applications 21(6), 2324-2333.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Tiang DCF, Morris A, Bell M, Gibbins CN, Azhar B, Lechner AM (2021) Ecological connectivity in fragmented agricultural landscapes and the importance of scattered trees and small patches. Ecological Processes 10, 20.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(50), 20260-20264.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Tingley R, Macdonald SL, Mitchell NJ, Woinarski JCZ, Meiri S, Bowles P, Cox NA, Shea GM, Böhm M, Chanson J, Tognelli MF, Harris J, Walke C, Harrison N, Victor S, Woods C, Amey AP, Bamford M, Catt G, Clemann N, Couper PJ, Cogger H, Cowan M, Craig MD, Dickman CR, Doughty P, Ellis R, Fenner A, Ford S, Gaikhorst G, Gillespie GR, Greenlees MJ, Hobson R, Hoskin CJ, How R, Hutchinson MN, Lloyd R, McDonald P, Melville J, Michael DR, Moritz C, Oliver PM, Peterson G, Robertson P, Sanderson C, Somaweera R, Teale R, Valentine L, Vanderduys E, Venz M, Wapstra E, Wilson S, Chapple DG (2019) Geographic and taxonomic patterns of extinction risk in Australian squamates. Biological Conservation 238, 108203.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Todd BD, Andrews KM (2008) Response of a reptile guild to forest harvesting. Conservation Biology 22(3), 753-761.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Tolley KA, Weeber J, Maritz B, Verburgt L, Bates MF, Conradie W, Hofmeyr MD, Turner AA, Da Silva JM, Alexander GJ (2019) No safe haven: protection levels show imperilled South African reptiles not sufficiently safe-guarded despite low average extinction risk. Biological Conservation 233, 61-72.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Török P, Lindborg R, Eldridge D, Pakeman R (2024) Grazing effects on vegetation: biodiversity, management, and restoration. Applied Vegetation Science 27(3), e12794.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Triquet C, Perennes M, Séchaud R, van der Meer M, Fabian Y, Jeanneret P (2024) What evidence exists on the effect of the main European lowland crop and grassland management practices on biodiversity indicator species groups? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence 13(1), 20.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Val J, Travers SK, Oliver I, Koen TB, Eldridge DJ (2019) Recent grazing reduces reptile richness but historic grazing filters reptiles based on their functional traits. Journal of Applied Ecology 56(4), 833-842.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Verschuyl J, Riffell S, Miller D, Wigley TB (2011) Biodiversity response to intensive biomass production from forest thinning in North American forests – a meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 261(2), 221-232.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wang C-J, Wan J-Z, Fajardo J (2021) Effects of agricultural lands on the distribution pattern of genus diversity for neotropical terrestrial vertebrates. Ecological Indicators 129, 107900.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Webb JK, Shine R, Pringle RM (2005) Canopy removal restores habitat quality for an endangered snake in a fire suppressed landscape. Copeia 2005(4), 894-900.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Westaway DM, Jolly CJ, Watson DM, Jessop TS, Michael DR, Linley GD, Aristova A, Holmes B, Price JN, Ritchie EG, Geary WL, Buchan A, Loeffler E, Nimmo DG (2024) Fragments maintain similar herpetofauna and small mammal richness and diversity to continuous habitat, but community composition and traits differ. Landscape Ecology 39(8), 138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Williams JR, Driscoll DA, Bull CM (2011) Roadside connectivity does not increase reptile abundance or richness in a fragmented mallee landscape. Austral Ecology 37(3), 383-391.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Williams DR, Balmford A, Wilcove DS (2020) The past and future role of conservation science in saving biodiversity. Conservation Letters 13(4), e12720.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wilson DJ, Mulvey RL, Clark RD (2007) Sampling skinks and geckos in artificial cover objects in a dry mixed grassland-shrubland with mammalian predator control. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 31(2), 169-185.
| Google Scholar |
