A systematic review of snake translocations to identify potential tactics for reducing postrelease effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in the field of reintroduction biology are needed, but understanding of how to effectively conduct translocations, particularly with snakes, is lacking. We conducted a systematic review of snake translocation studies to identify potential tactics for reducing postrelease effects. We included studies on intentional, human-mediated, wild-wild, or captive-wild translocations to any location, regardless of motive or number of snakes translocated. Only studies that presented results for at least 1 of 4 outcomes (movement behavior, site fidelity, survival, or population establishment) were included. We systematically searched 4 databases for published studies and used 5 methods to search the gray literature. Our search and screening criteria yielded 121 data sources, representing 130 translocation cases. We quantified the association between 15 translocation tactics and short-term translocation outcomes by calculating odds ratios and used forest plots to display results. Snake translocations involved 47 species (from mainly 2 families), and most were motivated by research, were monitored for at least 6 months, occurred in North America, and took place from the 1990s onward. The odds of a positive snake translocation outcome were highest with release of captive reared or juvenile snakes, release of social groups together, delayed release, provision of environmental enrichment or social housing before release, or minimization of distance translocated. The odds of a positive outcome were lowest when snakes were released early in their active season. Our results do not demonstrate causation, but outcomes of snake translocation were associated with 8 tactics (4 of which were strongly correlated). In addition to targeted comparative studies, we recommend practitioners consider the possible influence of these tactics when planning snake translocations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".