Antica Culina

Implementing effective, affordable and ethical conservation management will be crucial for minimising future biodiversity losses. Such management requires reliable foundational evidence to help managers make informed choices about how to address the needs of their target species. Unfortunately, such evidence is still lacking for many species and management scenarios. One major global challenge is improving the reproductive success of threatened species in the context of predation. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of in situ experiments that used non‐lethal methods to protect bird nests against predators, with the aims of summarising global trends in nest protection efforts, comparing the effectiveness of different protection measures and informing future research and management. We considered peer‐reviewed studies in English. We detected a large geographic and taxonomic bias in the evidence base with 58% of articles conducted in North America and 76% on ground‐nesting birds. Less than 3% of articles involved taxa listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered and 51% of study units lasted just a single breeding season. Nests protected with exclosures, fences and guards were more likely to be successful than their unprotected controls. Interventions involving deterrents, conditioned taste aversion, chemical camouflage and diversionary feeding did not have a significant positive effect on nest success, but the interventions in these categories were less common and more diverse in nature. Synthesis and applications . To increase their conservation value, future non‐lethal nest protection experiments should whenever possible clearly state overall aims, take place over multiple seasons, use a comparable control and test non‐lethal protection methods independently of lethal predator control. Greater focus is required on under‐studied taxa such as cup‐nesting songbirds and birds in South America, Africa and Asia, and novel protection techniques such as deterrents and chemical camouflage. Practitioners should consider the evidence we synthesise here when deciding whether non‐lethal nest protection approaches are optimal for their study system, to increase conservation success and reduce ethical and financial costs.

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology. Abstract Code review is the process of either informally (as part of a group, as colleagues) or formally (as part of the peer review process) checking and evaluating each other's code and is a critical method of reducing errors and increasing research reproducibility and reliability. In this paper, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code (including introducing the four Rs), how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possibleimplementation at several stages throughout the research process.