Several ungulate species are showing increasing population patterns within their geographical distribution ranges, leading to constant interactions with other animal species. Varying densities and activities of different ungulates may result in diverse impacts on other coexisting species groups, including large numbers of threatened species, such as reptiles. In this study, we performed an analysis of the available literature to investigate the impacts of ungulates on reptiles. We aimed to reveal the diversity of: (1) the geographical and environmental distribution of related investigations; (2) the ungulate and reptile species involved; and (3) the characteristics of interactions (direct or indirect, positive or negative) from 69 publications. Our results show that the most papers were reported from the Americas (42%) and Australia (28%). The proportions of studies were balanced for wild ungulates (53%) and livestock (47%). Wild boar (Sus scrofa) was found to be the most problematic species on reptiles whereas reptiles which suffered the harshest impacts were Squamates (i.e., lizards, and snakes). Ungulate activities (e.g., digging by wild boar) may directly harm reptiles (consuming or killing them) or indirectly affect them by modifying their habitats or destroying their hideouts. Some preferential effects were also noted (e.g., by moderate livestock grazing or when wild ungulates are prey for large reptiles). Published livestock impacts were mainly indirect and mostly negatively linked to overgrazing. We conclude that it is important to manage and monitor the densities of ungulates to minimize their negative impacts on reptile species, especially in case of wild boar and grazing livestock, but also to maintain their moderate beneficial effects (e.g., as prey basis).

Semi-natural environments within cities can provide habitats for vulnerable reptile species. Better understanding of their habitat use and home range sizes is important for their conservation. We investigated the spatial ecology of Caspian whipsnakes (Dolicophis caspius) in a peri-urban habitat in Budapest, Hungary. We used radiotelemetry to track five adult snakes and analyzed their microhabitat preferences, home range sizes and daily movements. The Caspian whipsnakes intensively utilized areas covered with woody vegetation, with a high density of hibernacula. The tracked snakes used an area of 40.15 ha during the activity period from spring to autumn, but for the winter, they withdrew to a central area of 1.75 ha, abundant in hibernacula. During the activity period the individual home range sizes varied between 6.1 and 15.5 ha, estimated using the minimum convex polygon (MCP); however, for the entire datasets of the individuals, the adaptive kernel method gave the highest mean (13.8 ha), while the LoCoH-R yielded the smallest home ranges (5.19 ha). We found that the average daily displacement for the different individuals ranged between 12.6 and 36.6 m during their main activity season. In the study area, the whipsnakes currently have enough space for foraging, but the restricted spatial distribution of hibernacula, which is mainly available in the central dry rocky forest and partly in the shrubby areas, can limit the extent of the suitable habitat. Human activities and anthropogenic disturbances, especially around hibernacula, may exert pressure on this peri-urban snake population.

The development of cities and urban sprawl has made room for wildlife inhabiting human environments. Among birds, feral pigeons (Columba livia domestica) are often present in large numbers in the cities. Problems related to pigeon occurrence result in economic loss and health issues for humans. There are different methods of controlling pigeon populations in urban areas. In this study, we compared three techniques that can be used for pigeon pest control. In two urban industrial sites in Hungary, we used trapping, falconry (in both Study Area 1 and 2) and mist-netting (only in Study Area 2) to remove pigeons. We compared the effectiveness and limitations of each method. Our results show that over 105 days in Study Area 1, we managed to remove 173 individual pigeons. We did not find a significant difference between the effectiveness of trapping or falconry. In Study Area 2, the overall number of pigeons removed was 1412 over a period of 150 days. There, we managed to catch significantly more birds by netting than by trapping or falconry, but the latter two did not differ statistically. We recommend a combination of techniques for pigeon control. Mist-netting can be the most effective way for direct pigeon removal, whereas trapping is an easier but less efficient method to catch pigeons. Falconry is the least efficient in pigeon catching and requires the most investments, but the bird of prey may chase the pigeons away for a short time.