Skip to content

Slow-Worm Detection Varied With Both Season and Refuge Material

Slow worm stretched across leaf litter and pine needles
Research · Other research

How often slow worms (Anguis fragilis) were found beneath artificial refuges depended strongly on the time of year, while the relative performance of different refuge materials also changed between months. A British field study published on 1 March 2026 compared four commonly used refuge types at three grassland sites near Hertford.

The researchers compared 120 refuges across the three sites: flat bitumen roofing felt, carpet tile, corrugated bitumen-soaked fibre and corrugated metal. Surveys ran from April to October 2016.

Slow-Worm Use of Refuges Peaked in June

The analysis focused on April to August; September and October were excluded because sampling was too sparse. The proportion of occupied refuges was highest in June, at 11.5%, followed by July at 7.7% and August at 5.3%. April and May had much lower occupancy. Sampling effort was uneven between months, so the seasonal differences require some caution in interpretation.

When all months were pooled, the two flat materials were occupied somewhat more often than the two corrugated materials, but refuge type alone did not consistently explain occupancy. Instead, the effect of refuge material changed with month.

Relative Performance Changed Through the Season

Differences among refuge types were clearest in May and July. In July, flat roofing felt, carpet tile and corrugated metal had a higher estimated probability of occupancy than corrugated roofing felt. In May, carpet tile and corrugated roofing felt formed the higher-probability group.

The researchers link these differences to the microclimates created beneath the refuges. Slow worms obtain much of their warmth through contact with warm surfaces, while moisture may also matter because prey such as slugs and earthworms favour damp conditions.

Artificial refuges are widely used in presence–absence surveys for slow worms. Because no single material performed best throughout the season, the authors suggest that using a mixture of refuge types simultaneously could increase detection under changing seasonal conditions.

Sources and image credit

  1. Regis, H., Helm, C., & Mashanova, A. (2026). Influence of artificial refuge type on the success of a presence-absence survey for slow worms Anguis fragilis. The Herpetological Bulletin, 175, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.33256/hb175.813Primary peer-reviewed field study published 1 March 2026. Four artificial-refuge materials were compared at three grassland sites near Hertford. The analysis included 1,847 refuge checks; month and the month-by-refuge-type interaction affected detection, while refuge type alone was not significant.

Image: Joost J. Bakker — wild slow worm photographed 26 March 2010; Wikimedia Commons/Flickr. Representative image for this story; not presented as an animal or scene from the reported study or event. · CC BY 2.0 · Source

About this content: This story was produced with AI assistance within an editorial workflow developed by Wildlife Vagabond. Editorial responsibility remains with Wildlife Vagabond.How AI is used

Other research

SPECIES IN THIS STORY

Species in this story

Slow Worm Anguis fragilis Explore species

Independent research and conservation news archive

Did you find this information useful?

Wildlife Vagabond is independently built and maintained. Voluntary support helps cover source verification, hosting and continued work on research and conservation news.

Support Wildlife Vagabond

The news archive will remain freely available.